Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa

Cletus Tandoh Andoh

doi:doi:10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa

Cletus Tandoh Andoh

Published in International Journal of Health Economics and Policy (Volume 2, Issue 2)

Received: 11 January 2017 Accepted: 24 January 2017 Published: 21 February 2017

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Human germline modification, using Crisp Cas-9 technology, increases the chances for scientists to seize control of our genes and redirect our evolutionary futures, which can lead to production of a morally bifurcated world of humans. Confronted with the reality of tailor-designing humans to ultimately tailor-make a human person and of remaking humanity, many scientists advocate for a ban or moratorium to evaluate the benefits and risks. While others counter that we need to embrace the uncertainties and let science move on. This work, critically examines the ethically contentious issues of editing DNA of healthy human embryos and maps out the regulatory challenges accompanying the futuristic development of genome editing technologies in Africa. It explores the range of mechanisms that have been adopted for regulation, oversight and mediation of public concerns. The absence of robust oversight and ethical control mechanisms to prevent technologies from being misused is a serious challenge for Africans to develop regulatory safeguards. There is still a huge lack of study to establish evidence if gene editing technologies would be used to foster the eugenic agenda of the gene rich of the West over the gene poor of Africa, or promote the common good. Work further identifies the need for African governments to formulate new guidelines for genome editing technologies and build appropriate regulatory structures to identify, anticipate and respond to public concerns on embryo gene editing for reproduction.

Published in	International Journal of Health Economics and Policy (Volume 2, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
Page(s)	30-46
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Germline Modification, Genetic Engineering, CRISPR-Cas9, Gene Editing, Designer Babies, Enhancement, Ethics, Regulation

References

[1]	Araki M, Ishii T. (2014). International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 12:108.
[2]	Barchiet al. (2015). “The keeping is the problem”: A qualitative study of IRB-member perspectives in Botswana on the collection, use, and storage of human biological samples for research. BMC Medical Ethics; 16:54.
[3]	Blendon R., Gorski M. and Benson J. (2016). The Public and the Gene-Editing Revolution. New England Journal of Medicine; 374; 15.
[4]	Boeke JD et al. (2016). The Genome Project–Write. Science. June 2.
[5]	Braun Kathrin. (2016). From Ethical Exceptionalism to Ethical Exceptions: The Rule and Exception Model and the Changing Meaning of Ethics in German Bioregulation. Developing World Bioethics.
[6]	Callaway Ewen. (2016). Embryo editing gets green light. Nature. Vol.530. No. 18.
[7]	Carroll D, Charo RA. (2015). The Societal Opportunities and Challenges of Genome Editing. Genome Biology. Vol.16. No. 242.
[8]	Chan Sarah. (2015). The ethics of changing genes in the embryo. EuroStem Cell. www.eurostemcell.org.
[9]	Cyranoski David. (2016). CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time. Nature. Vol. 539. N.479.
[10]	Darnovsky Marcy. (2013). A slippery slope to human germline modification, Nature, vol.499; 127.
[11]	Friedmann T, Jonlin EC, King NM, Torbett BE, Wivel NA, Kaneda Y, Sadelain M. (2015). ASGCT and JSGT joint position statement on human genomic editing. Molecular Therapy. Vol. 23:1282.
[12]	Gosic´ N. (2005), Bioeticˇkaedukacija. Zagreb: Pergamena: 16.
[13]	Habermas, Jürgen. (2003). The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge (UK), Polity.
[14]	Hayden EC. (2016). Tomorrow’s Children. What would genome editing really mean for future generations? Nature. Vol. 530. No. 402. 25 February.
[15]	Isasi RM., Kleiderman E. Knoppers BM. (2016). Genetic Technology Regulation. Editing policy to fit the genome? Framing genome editing policy requires setting thresholds of acceptability. Science. Vol. 35. Issue 6271.
[16]	Ishii Tetsuya. (2015). Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society. Briefings in Functional Genomics. Vol. 1–11.
[17]	Ishii Tetsuya. (2016). Reproductive medicine involving genome editing: clinical uncertainties and embryological needs. Reproductive BioMedicine Online.
[18]	Jasanoff Sheila. (2016). The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. W. W. Norton & Company.
[19]	Juric´ Hurvoje. (2007). Uporištazaintegrativnubioetiku u djelu Van Rensselaera Pottera. In Integrativnabioetika i izazovisuvremenecivilizacije. V. Valjan, ed. Sarajevo: BioeticˇkodruštvoBiH: 83.
[20]	Kang E, Wu J et al. (2016). Mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes carrying pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations. Nature. 540, 270–275.
[21]	Karlin Sarah. (2016). Gene editing: The next frontier in America’s abortion wars, Politico Magazine.
[22]	Kirby P. (2006). Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalisation. London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
[23]	Kohn DB, Porteus MH and Scharenberg AM. (2016). Genome Editing in Hematology. Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Genome Editing. Blood. V. 127. No 21: 2553-2560.
[24]	Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. (2015). The ethics weathervane. BMC Medical Ethics; 16:58.
[25]	Lanphier E., Urnov F., Haecker SE, Werner M., Smolenski J. (2015). Don't edit the human germ line. Nature. Vol. 519: 410–411.
[26]	Ledford H. (2015). CRISPR, the Disruptor. Nature. No. 24. Vol. 522.
[27]	Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv Jie et al. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 6(5):363–372.
[28]	LunshofJeantine. (2015). Regulate gene editing in wild animals. Nature. Vol. 521; 127.
[29]	Maeder ML and Gersbach CA. (2016). Genome-editing Technologies for Gene and Cell Therapy. Official journal of the American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy. Vol. 24. No. 3, 430–446.
[30]	Norcross Sarah. (2015). Genome editing raises complex issues – banning it is not the answer. The Guardian.
[31]	Peng R, Lin G, Li J. (2016). Potential pitfalls of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. The FEBS Journal. Vol. 283(7):1218-31.
[32]	Pinker Steven. (2015). The Moral Imperative for Bioethics. The Boston Globe.
[33]	Rao Anjali. (2015). Tailoring your DNA: The Future of Genome Editng. Helix Magazine.
[34]	Resnik DB and Vorhaus DB. (2006). Genetic modification and genetic determinism. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. Vol.1:9.
[35]	Ruger JP. (2004). Millennium development goals for health: building human capabilities. Bull World Health Organ. Vol. 82: 951–2.
[36]	Ruger, JP. (2006). Ethics and governance of global health inequalities. Journ Epidemiol Community Health; 60:998–1003.
[37]	Sandel M. (2004). The case against perfection. The Atlantic Monthly. April: 51-61.
[38]	Sandel MJ. (2004). Embryo Ethics — The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research. New England Journal of Medicine; 351:207-209.
[39]	Sarewitz Daniel. (2015). Science can’t solve it. Nature. Vol. 522. No 413.
[40]	Sugarman Jeremy. (2015). Ethics and germline gene editing. EMBO reports.
[41]	Tauxe Will. (2015). Genome Editing. 4 Big Questions. Nature. Vol. 528. S.17.
[42]	The NIH Director. (2015). Statement on NIH funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos. April 29. http://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director.
[43]	Tomislav Bracanovic.´ (2012). From Integrative Bioethics to Pseudoscience. Developing World Bioethics, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp 148–156.
[44]	Vassena R, Heindryckx B et al. (2016). Genome engineering through CRISPR/Cas9 technology in the human germline and pluripotent stem cells, Human Reproduction Update; 22(4):411-9. June 2016.
[45]	Veatch RM. (1987). The patient as partner: a theory of human experimentation ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[46]	Vitillo Loriana. (2016). Genome editing and stem cells: Questions and Answers. EuroStem Cell. http://www.eurostemcell.org.
[47]	World Health Organization. (2016). Guidance for Managing Ethical Issues in Infectious Disease Outbreaks. Geneva, World Health Organization Press.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cletus Tandoh Andoh. (2017). Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa. International Journal of Health Economics and Policy, 2(2), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cletus Tandoh Andoh. Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa. Int. J. Health Econ. Policy 2017, 2(2), 30-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cletus Tandoh Andoh. Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa. Int J Health Econ Policy. 2017;2(2):30-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11,
  author = {Cletus Tandoh Andoh},
  title = {Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa},
  journal = {International Journal of Health Economics and Policy},
  volume = {2},
  number = {2},
  pages = {30-46},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hep.20170202.11},
  abstract = {Human germline modification, using Crisp Cas-9 technology, increases the chances for scientists to seize control of our genes and redirect our evolutionary futures, which can lead to production of a morally bifurcated world of humans. Confronted with the reality of tailor-designing humans to ultimately tailor-make a human person and of remaking humanity, many scientists advocate for a ban or moratorium to evaluate the benefits and risks. While others counter that we need to embrace the uncertainties and let science move on. This work, critically examines the ethically contentious issues of editing DNA of healthy human embryos and maps out the regulatory challenges accompanying the futuristic development of genome editing technologies in Africa. It explores the range of mechanisms that have been adopted for regulation, oversight and mediation of public concerns. The absence of robust oversight and ethical control mechanisms to prevent technologies from being misused is a serious challenge for Africans to develop regulatory safeguards. There is still a huge lack of study to establish evidence if gene editing technologies would be used to foster the eugenic agenda of the gene rich of the West over the gene poor of Africa, or promote the common good. Work further identifies the need for African governments to formulate new guidelines for genome editing technologies and build appropriate regulatory structures to identify, anticipate and respond to public concerns on embryo gene editing for reproduction.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa
AU  - Cletus Tandoh Andoh
Y1  - 2017/02/21
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
T2  - International Journal of Health Economics and Policy
JF  - International Journal of Health Economics and Policy
JO  - International Journal of Health Economics and Policy
SP  - 30
EP  - 46
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-9309
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
AB  - Human germline modification, using Crisp Cas-9 technology, increases the chances for scientists to seize control of our genes and redirect our evolutionary futures, which can lead to production of a morally bifurcated world of humans. Confronted with the reality of tailor-designing humans to ultimately tailor-make a human person and of remaking humanity, many scientists advocate for a ban or moratorium to evaluate the benefits and risks. While others counter that we need to embrace the uncertainties and let science move on. This work, critically examines the ethically contentious issues of editing DNA of healthy human embryos and maps out the regulatory challenges accompanying the futuristic development of genome editing technologies in Africa. It explores the range of mechanisms that have been adopted for regulation, oversight and mediation of public concerns. The absence of robust oversight and ethical control mechanisms to prevent technologies from being misused is a serious challenge for Africans to develop regulatory safeguards. There is still a huge lack of study to establish evidence if gene editing technologies would be used to foster the eugenic agenda of the gene rich of the West over the gene poor of Africa, or promote the common good. Work further identifies the need for African governments to formulate new guidelines for genome editing technologies and build appropriate regulatory structures to identify, anticipate and respond to public concerns on embryo gene editing for reproduction.
VL  - 2
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Cletus Tandoh Andoh

Philosophy Department, Faculty of Arts, Letters and Social Sciences, University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, Cameroon

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Cletus Tandoh Andoh. (2017). Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa. International Journal of Health Economics and Policy, 2(2), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Cletus Tandoh Andoh. Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa. Int. J. Health Econ. Policy 2017, 2(2), 30-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Cletus Tandoh Andoh. Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa. Int J Health Econ Policy. 2017;2(2):30-46. doi: 10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11,
  author = {Cletus Tandoh Andoh},
  title = {Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa},
  journal = {International Journal of Health Economics and Policy},
  volume = {2},
  number = {2},
  pages = {30-46},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hep.20170202.11},
  abstract = {Human germline modification, using Crisp Cas-9 technology, increases the chances for scientists to seize control of our genes and redirect our evolutionary futures, which can lead to production of a morally bifurcated world of humans. Confronted with the reality of tailor-designing humans to ultimately tailor-make a human person and of remaking humanity, many scientists advocate for a ban or moratorium to evaluate the benefits and risks. While others counter that we need to embrace the uncertainties and let science move on. This work, critically examines the ethically contentious issues of editing DNA of healthy human embryos and maps out the regulatory challenges accompanying the futuristic development of genome editing technologies in Africa. It explores the range of mechanisms that have been adopted for regulation, oversight and mediation of public concerns. The absence of robust oversight and ethical control mechanisms to prevent technologies from being misused is a serious challenge for Africans to develop regulatory safeguards. There is still a huge lack of study to establish evidence if gene editing technologies would be used to foster the eugenic agenda of the gene rich of the West over the gene poor of Africa, or promote the common good. Work further identifies the need for African governments to formulate new guidelines for genome editing technologies and build appropriate regulatory structures to identify, anticipate and respond to public concerns on embryo gene editing for reproduction.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Genome Editing Technologies: Ethical and Regulation Challenges for Africa
AU  - Cletus Tandoh Andoh
Y1  - 2017/02/21
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
T2  - International Journal of Health Economics and Policy
JF  - International Journal of Health Economics and Policy
JO  - International Journal of Health Economics and Policy
SP  - 30
EP  - 46
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-9309
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hep.20170202.11
AB  - Human germline modification, using Crisp Cas-9 technology, increases the chances for scientists to seize control of our genes and redirect our evolutionary futures, which can lead to production of a morally bifurcated world of humans. Confronted with the reality of tailor-designing humans to ultimately tailor-make a human person and of remaking humanity, many scientists advocate for a ban or moratorium to evaluate the benefits and risks. While others counter that we need to embrace the uncertainties and let science move on. This work, critically examines the ethically contentious issues of editing DNA of healthy human embryos and maps out the regulatory challenges accompanying the futuristic development of genome editing technologies in Africa. It explores the range of mechanisms that have been adopted for regulation, oversight and mediation of public concerns. The absence of robust oversight and ethical control mechanisms to prevent technologies from being misused is a serious challenge for Africans to develop regulatory safeguards. There is still a huge lack of study to establish evidence if gene editing technologies would be used to foster the eugenic agenda of the gene rich of the West over the gene poor of Africa, or promote the common good. Work further identifies the need for African governments to formulate new guidelines for genome editing technologies and build appropriate regulatory structures to identify, anticipate and respond to public concerns on embryo gene editing for reproduction.
VL  - 2
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download