• HOME
  • NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
Monday, August 25, 2025
BIOENGINEER.ORG
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • HOME
  • NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
        • Lecturer
        • PhD Studentship
        • Postdoc
        • Research Assistant
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
  • HOME
  • NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
        • Lecturer
        • PhD Studentship
        • Postdoc
        • Research Assistant
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
No Result
View All Result
Bioengineer.org
No Result
View All Result
Home NEWS Science News Biology

Paper: Congress must clarify limits of gene-editing technologies

Bioengineer by Bioengineer
October 21, 2020
in Biology
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on RedditShare on Telegram

IMAGE

Credit: Photo by L. Brian Stauffer

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. –Genome editing of human embryos represents one of the most contentious potential scientific applications today. But what if geneticists could sidestep the controversy by editing sperm and eggs instead?

According to a new paper co-written by a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign legal expert who studies the ethical and policy implications of advanced biotechnologies, how the next Congress decides to handle the issue will affect the science, ethics and financing of genome editing for decades to come.

Although there are a number of statutes and federal appropriation riders that take as their bioethical center the human embryo, none exist that govern the editing of “gametes” – that is, sperm and eggs, said Jacob S. Sherkow, a professor of law at Illinois.

“The current federal funding ban is predicated on a concept of bioethics that focuses on the embryo, and that’s because there’s widespread recognition in U.S. society that embryos have a certain moral salience that other biological components don’t,” he said. “But with advances in biotechnology, you can get around that. You can sidestep editing embryos by editing sperm and eggs, instead.

“Regardless of how one thinks about whether embryos should get special bioethical status in this context, you have to understand that the same technology can now be used on sperm and eggs. So federal funding bans on genetically editing embryos with technologies such as CRISPR may not extend to future generations of the technology – and those future generations are coming quickly.”

In the paper, Sherkow and co-authors Eli Y. Adashi of Brown University and I. Glenn Cohen of Harvard Law School discuss how the editing of sperm and eggs differs from embryos from a bioethical and U.S. legal perspective.

“This is particularly timely for two reasons,” he said. “One, genome-editing technology is getting more effective, cheaper and safer to use every day; and two, this is an election year. We’re going to seat a new Congress in January, and whether to continue down this path is something that the new Congress is going to have to decide.”

The main statute that prohibits the clinical use of heritable genomic editing is an annually renewed Congressional appropriations rider first put into law in 2015.

According to Sherkow and his colleagues, the rider was initially dropped into an appropriations bill with little discussion. The language was briefly removed last year, prompting a debate about whether it applied to certain mitochondrial-replacement therapies and ought to be reinserted.

“The debate was firmly centered on the editing of embryos, but no legislator considered whether the language also applied to the editing of sperm and eggs,” Sherkow said. “And there are strong arguments to be made that the plain text of the rider does not apply to sperm and eggs.”

If the appropriations rider doesn’t apply to editing sperm and eggs, then those who believe that such editing is just as problematic as editing embryos “should seek to alter the rider to make it apply to sperm and egg editing, as well,” Sherkow said.

“Some of the ethical concerns raised about editing embryos are applicable to editing sperm and eggs while others are not,” he said. “Objections to embryonic gene editing due to the need to destroy human embryos in research and clinical applications are quite different for sperm and eggs.”

Those who have opposed the destruction of embryos, including members of some religious communities, haven’t raised similar objections to sperm and egg editing, Sherkow said.

“Proponents of embryonic personhood claims emphasize that the genetic code of the early embryo is set at the time when sperm and egg form a zygote. But sperm and egg editing occurs before that moment, toppling the claim that editing gametes alters ‘a person,’ and is really more analogous to selecting a sperm or egg donor.”

At the same time, policymakers should be heartened by the notion that “we don’t necessarily have to stop research on these technologies because now we have the ability to do it in gametes as opposed to embryos,” said Sherkow, who also is an affiliate of the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology.

“The new Congress that’s seated in January should pay attention to the development of genome-editing technologies like these, and should be more attuned to the extent of what limits it wants to put on research, given that such research can proceed without some of the moral trappings that have jammed prior Congresses,” he said. “For those who think that there are important differences between embryos and gametes, this may offer an opportunity to develop a different regulated pathway for sperm and egg editing.”

###

The paper was published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics.

Media Contact
Phil Ciciora
[email protected]

Original Source

https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/2019892186

Related Journal Article

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073110520958891

Tags: Gene TherapyGenesGeneticsMedical/Scientific EthicsPolicy/EthicsScience/Health and the Law
Share12Tweet8Share2ShareShareShare2

Related Posts

Innovative 3D-Printed Scaffolds Pave the Way for Spinal Cord Injury Recovery

Innovative 3D-Printed Scaffolds Pave the Way for Spinal Cord Injury Recovery

August 25, 2025
blank

Regulating Flavonoids and Hormones in Ancient Ginkgo

August 25, 2025

Acacia Saligna Seed Meal: A Soy Replacement for Broilers

August 25, 2025

Cell Science Unlocked: The Dynamic Duo of Essential Tools for Discovery

August 25, 2025
Please login to join discussion

POPULAR NEWS

  • blank

    Molecules in Focus: Capturing the Timeless Dance of Particles

    142 shares
    Share 57 Tweet 36
  • Breakthrough in Computer Hardware Advances Solves Complex Optimization Challenges

    141 shares
    Share 56 Tweet 35
  • New Drug Formulation Transforms Intravenous Treatments into Rapid Injections

    115 shares
    Share 46 Tweet 29
  • Neuropsychiatric Risks Linked to COVID-19 Revealed

    81 shares
    Share 32 Tweet 20

About

We bring you the latest biotechnology news from best research centers and universities around the world. Check our website.

Follow us

Recent News

In Vivo Insights into Aggregation-Induced Emission

Innovative 3D-Printed Scaffolds Pave the Way for Spinal Cord Injury Recovery

Freezing Stress Triggers Phytochemical Changes in Rhododendron

  • Contact Us

Bioengineer.org © Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Homepages
    • Home Page 1
    • Home Page 2
  • News
  • National
  • Business
  • Health
  • Lifestyle
  • Science

Bioengineer.org © Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved.