More than half of the UK supports the idea of rewriting the DNA of human embryos to prevent serious or life-threatening illnesses, according to a survey.
Commissioned by the Progress Educational Trust (PET), a fertility and genomics charity, the Ipsos survey found that 53% of people support the use of human genome editing to prevent children from developing conditions. such as cystic fibrosis.
There was less enthusiasm for using the procedure to prevent milder conditions such as asthma, with only 36% in favor, and to create designer babies, with only a fifth expressing support, but opinions on technology differs dramatically with age.
The younger generations were much more in favor of designer babies than older ones, with 38% of young people aged 16 to 24 and 31% of those aged 25 to 34 supporting the use of gene editing. to allow parents to choose roles. such as the height of your child and the color of his eyes and hair.
In the UK and many other countries it is illegal to edit the genome in embryos intended for pregnancy, but restrictions could be lifted if research shows that the procedure can safely prevent serious disease.
Genome editing has been hailed as a potential game changer to address a range of inherited diseases ranging from cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy to Tay-Sachs, a rare disease that progressively destroys the nervous system. In principle, defective genes that cause disease can be rewritten in IVF embryos, allowing these embryos to develop in healthy babies.
Despite enormous progress in the field, work still needs to be done to refine genome editing and ensure that it does not cause unwanted changes in DNA. Because the edits would be made in embryos, the altered DNA would affect every cell in the child’s body and could be passed on to future generations.
In 2018, a Chinese researcher, He Jiankui, provoked worldwide condemnation when he announced that he had tried to edit the genomes of two girls in the hope of making them immune to HIV. He was later jailed for violating medical regulations. The fury sparked an international commission, convened by the Royal Society and others, which concluded that genome editing was far from ready for the clinic.
In a report on the results of the survey, PET says that if genome editing is used for medical use, it should be done in a “scientifically and ethically rigorous manner.”
The authors say it is “appealing” that younger people are more willing to accept the editing of the human genome for preferred features, such as eye and hair color. “It’s worth paying attention to these opinions, but we should continue to prioritize medical needs in the first instance,” they write.
John Harris, Professor Emeritus of Bioethics at the University of Manchester, said he supported the “maximum possible choice” of parents when choosing their children’s physical traits if the traits themselves are not harmful.
“I don’t think it’s wrong in principle to design harmless or better traits than the originals in our children if we can,” he said. “If it’s not wrong to want a brown-eyed girl, how does it hurt to implement it if you have the power? We’re too prepared to call eugenics when people want to exercise innocent preferences.”
According to a survey by a national representative of 2,233 adults in the UK, two-thirds believe the NHS should offer fertility treatment for infertile people and want to conceive, but the report notes that access to IVF Free is still a “zip code lottery.” Support is highest for heterosexual couples without children, with 49%, while only 19% are in favor of the NHS providing fertility treatment for single or transgender people.
“It is disappointing that while gender discrimination is illegal in the UK, attitudes towards family structures remain traditional,” said Professor Alison Murdoch, President of the British Fertility Society. “The best news, though, is that most people seem to have no objection to IVF, a major change for 40 years. IVF is now a routine procedure, so why doesn’t the NHS give it a try? to everyone?