By Matthew Chun
He Jiankui — a high-profile Chinese scientist convicted for conducting unethical gene-editing experiments — has been released from prison and is currently fundraising for his new gene therapy endeavor. As the scientific community grapples with how to respond, theories of criminal justice can provide important perspectives to better inform the conversation surrounding Dr. He’s return to research.
By Matthew Bauer and Nicole Welch
Diagnostic tests have changed in the eyes of many Americans across the COVID-19 pandemic.
The traditional site of diagnostic testing, the doctor’s office, has taken a back seat during the COVID-19 pandemic. We can now receive at-home antigen tests in the mail, drive through PCR tests at local sports stadiums, and our workplace cafeteria may serve as a de facto COVID-19 testing site.
The new paradigm of fast, easily accessible, and user-based diagnostics helps to reduce barriers for people to test for COVID-19.
However, nearly all these tests give binary results of yes or no for detecting a specific piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As we look ahead, both the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics will require binary tests, but also tests that give us more granular information about the disease. These changes should be integrated into future diagnostic paradigms, empowering clinical diagnostics to meet both the needs of patients and the broader public health community. Read More
By Marnie Gelbart and Nadine Vincenten
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has entered our world with a big splash and opened the flood gates of genetic information. For over a decade, we have been out talking with people from all walks of life and listening to their stories. Whether we are speaking with scientists or non-scientists, we hear excitement, concerns, ambivalence – sometimes all three at the same time – and not surprisingly, many many questions as people try to make sense of it all.
Susan Domchek, executive director of the Basser Center for BRCA, recalls counseling a patient with a family history of breast, ovarian, and colon cancer. This patient had taken a DTC genetic test that looked at her BRCA genes, and the results led her to conclude that she was not at risk for the cancers that had burdened her family. However, the patient did not realize that the test only looked at 3 of the over 1,000 BRCA variants linked to an increased cancer risk. And because the test did not look at other genes implicated in cancer, the physician recognized that it may have underestimated her patient’s risk. What if the patient had seen a doctor who did not understand the limitations of the test? Might she have avoided taking potentially life-saving precautions? Read More
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
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
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
There is a page in the history books waiting to be written for the eradication of malaria. In recent years, malaria has killed more people globally than war—it’s killed predominately children, and predominately in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite being curable, and eliminated from most developed countries, malaria is the fifth deadliest infectious disease in the world.
A team of scientists in Italy is looking to write that history. Read More
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
Gene editing is at once promising and perilous. Or, as John Oliver said in a recent episode of his news show, it is ”either going to kill all disease or kill every last one of us.”
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is not as amusing as John Oliver, and unlike the summer film “Rampage,” its new gene editing report features neither The Rock nor a genetically modified, 30-foot wolf.
But if you want to understand what we may actually be getting ourselves into, England’s de facto national bioethics commission has produced a useful roadmap for educating the public and addressing concerns. It may the summer read you’ve been looking for.
And if there’s a gene splicer for envy, I’m ready to be CRISPR’d.
By Timo Minssen, Esther 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.