Illustration of a scientist editing a DNA strand

Establishing Standards for Gene Editing: Initial Steps from Private and Public Actors

By Phebe Hong

Nine months have passed since the startling news broke in November 2018 that Chinese researcher He Jiankui had used CRISPR/Cas9 to genetically modify the embryos of twin girls. The controversial news spurred the scientific and regulatory community into action. In late August 2019, two influential organizations — one from the private sector and one from the public sector — independently released statements announcing their efforts to establish standards for the nascent field of gene editing.

First, the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), the advocacy organization representing cell and gene therapy companies, released its “Therapeutic Developers’ Statement of Principles,” offering an industry perspective on the use of gene editing technologies. Shortly thereafter, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced its plans to build a new registry and governance framework to track and regulate human gene editing trials. The statements symbolize an initial step by both private and public organizations to build consensus around responsible stewardship principles to prevent future scientific and ethical transgressions. It remains to be seen how such statements and plans will be implemented and how they will influence the field of genome editing research going forward.

Read More

Regulation of Human Genome Editing in the Dawn of the CRISPR Era

By Scott J. Schweikart

With the advent of CRISPR and the first babies born with edited genomes, gene editing technology is now cheaper and more accurate than it has been. And there is now a verifiable occurrence of heritable genome modification using CRISPR.

As such, human genome editing is naturally (and quite rightly) receiving world-wide attention. Scientists, bioethicists, lawyers, and policy makers are questioning what is the best course of action in the face of this new technology that promises great medicinal benefits, but also poses great and unknown risks. Read More

Image of Normal blood cells next to a sickle blood cell, colored scanning electron microscope image.

Recharting the Course of Sickle Cell Disease – Who will Benefit?

By Vence L. Bonham and Anitra Persaud

Scientific advancements in gene therapy and the implications of leveraging this technology to develop new curative therapies are at the forefront of medical research. Sickle cell disease (SCD), the most common genetic blood disorder, stands center stage. Last month, 60 Minutes aired a segment showcasing the story of a patient at the NIH Clinical Center who is on her journey to a cure of sickle cell disease (SCD) with the help of an experimental gene therapy.

Preliminary clinical trial findings suggest that gene therapy has an acceptable level of safety and can help individuals with the disease produce normal red blood cells instead of the sickle-shaped ones that underlie the physiological basis of the disease and its complications. Given these promising results, there is hope that gene therapy may catalyze a turning point for the SCD population, a community that has long suffered the debilitating effects of not only their disease, but of longstanding neglect within the medical system and research enterprise. Read More

Of Risk and Gene Drives

A few weeks ago, I attended a panel on gene editing at Harvard Medical School that covered some aspects of the science, ethics, and law of the practice. It was an interesting talk, in part because it largely covered the ethical issues of gene editing for human medicine and in other species as two sides of the same coin, rather than as fundamentally different conversations, as they are often treated.

Indeed, one member of the audience asked why there is so much focus on the safety and ethics of human gene editing, when the stakes, he argued, are much higher in the use of gene editing for environmental engineering. A botched human germline edit could harm a family; a botched gene drive could kill us all. It’s an interesting point. And because it suggests that we may want to be less than sanguine on the use of gene drives to eradicate malaria, on which I have previously been extremely sanguine, it is a point worth responding to. Read More

Abstract representation of DNA double helix

Gene Editing and Intellectual Property: A Useful Mix?

The Health Policy and Bioethics Consortia is a monthly series that convenes two international experts from different fields or vantage points to discuss how biomedical innovation and health care delivery are affected by various ethical norms, laws, and regulations.

They are organized by the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in collaboration with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Support provided by the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

A light lunch will be provided. This event is free and open to the public, but space is limited and registration is required. Please note that attendees will need to show ID in order to enter the venue. Register now!

 

One way of thinking about genome editing is through the lens of the legal and ethical obligations of ensuring the technology is deployed safely and accurately, for the betterment of human society.

Or, if that’s a mouthful for you, genome editing’s rights—and wrongs. Which brings me to a talk I’ll* be giving at Harvard Medical School on March 8: “Genome Editing: Rights and Wrongs” I feel obligated, however, to asterisk the personal pronoun (“I”) because, in truth, what I’ll be doing is sharing the stage with one the world’s most celebrated scientists, George Church, world-renowned bioethicist, Jeantine Lunshof, and moderated by health policy guru, Aaron Kesselheim. Read More

close up of human eye

The Luxturna Debate: Why Ethics Needs a Seat at the Drug Pricing Table

By Clio Sophia Koller

Jack Hogan can now ride his bike home at dusk after an afternoon of playing with his friends. Is that childhood rite-of-passage worth $850,000?

Recently, the Health Policy and Bioethics Consortium convened by Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics and the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital met to discuss the implications of Spark Therapeutics’ new gene therapy treatment—along with its staggering price tag.

Luxturna, a novel therapy approved by the FDA last year, treats a rare form of inherited blindness known as retinitis pigmentosa. The therapeutic agent targets the RPE65 gene, associated with the disorder, and is shown to improve vision in a population with progressive vision-loss and an inability to see in dim light. Read More

Opportunities and challenges for user-generated licensing models in gene-editing

By Timo MinssenEsther van Zimmeren & Jakob Wested 

An earlier version of this contribution had been published in Life Science Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR).

A voluntary pool or clearinghouse model may give rise to a robust commercial ecosystem for CRISPR and could include special provisions for royalty-free research use by academics. Hence, there may be a path through the CRISPR patent jungle. But, there are many obstacles still in the way.

The revocation of Broad Institute’s patent EP2771468 reported and discussed here, marks the latest major development in a series of patent battles over the revolutionary and highly lucrative CRISPR-Cas9 technology (and other gene editing technologies) in the US and Europe.

While this is the first EPO decision in an opposition procedure concerning the Broad patent portfolio, the outcome may have implications for other related patents as the rationale for the revocation reflects a larger, systemic challenge based on the different rules regarding priority claims in different jurisdictions.

Read More