Sometime not necessarily too far from now,the first humans whose DNA has been intentionally edited by scientists couldvery likely be born.The technologiesthat make that theoreticallypossible have existed for some time now and in the past few years, new discoveries have made genetic editing tools far simpler, cheaper, and more accuratethough they still aren't preciseenough to use safely on human embryos that willbe carried to term.Still,that reality is close enough that the scientists who work closely with these tools have said that guidelines forthis research are urgently needed. And on February 14, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine issued a report that outlines the circumstances under which research into editing human embryos could be permitted."Although heritable germline genome editing trials must be approached with caution... caution does not mean prohibition," the National Academy committee said in a statement.That's a bigstatement. Right now, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits any research that would include germline genome editing; a number of other countriesalso prohibit similar research.These groups are hesitantbecause "heritable germline genome editing" is aworld-changing sort of thing. It means that researchers would go into the unique genetic blueprint for a person before they are born and make changes and substitutions, snipping out code for traits theydon't want and potentially replacing them with something else. Then, all of these changes would be passed on if that person had children, meaning that we'd have introduced manually edited genes into the wild.The National Academies panel convened to assess this is concludingthat under certain circumstances, that maybe okay.Still, even if the panelthinks that research and trials into human genome editing should go forward, the cases for which they think this should be permittedare very limited, for now at least.Thesorts of changes we might seeAfter evaluating the issue for a year, theNational Academies panelconcluded that clinical trials involving inheritable changes to the genome could be allowed, so long as they treat or prevent genetic diseases that we have no other way of dealing with.This could make a huge difference for the cases whereit's basically a certainty that parents will pass a devastating disease on to a child. Specific diseases that might fit this category include the blood disorderbeta thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, and sickle-cell anemia. But those cases are very rare.Perhaps more interestingly, the researchers leave open the possibility of using genetic editing to remove or replace mutations that make people susceptible to other diseases. They mention mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2, which can increase risks for breast and ovarian cancers. Edits like that could help remove mutations that make people more likely to get manyforms of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and other conditions. This could have a far-rippling effect on human health in the long run.If we get to the point that it's possible to safely and completely remove these sorts of dangerous mutations, theconclusion the panel arrived at mayallow for edits that prevent disease in this way. They don't think this would be the same as making "enhancements," which they say should not be allowed at this time, though they call for public discussion of those possibilities.Still, there are obstacles to overcome before this happens. For now it's hard to apply a genetic editing tool (like CRISPR) to an early embryo and have it make all the changes to a genome that you want (and no unwanted extra changes). When you let that editing tool loose it seeks out the segments of DNA you are targeting to eliminate or replace, but it may miss some of those segments or accidentally cut something else. These tools are becoming more and more accurate, but they aren't good enough that scientists would feel comfortable implanting an edited embryo yet.Even once those tools are perfected, the panel is sayinga go-ahead withtrials seems permissible. It is not recommending that this technology should immediately go into wide use. Plus, the FDA would have to allow these sorts of procedures for this to happen in the US and it's unclear if that will happen anytime in the near future.The basic implication of this is clear though. We know that these tools are improvingand we're using them more and more. In some places, like Sweden, the UK, and China, researchers have already started editing (or have received permission to edit) embryossome viable, some not, butnone thatthey plan to implant yet. All of this will further improve the accuracy of these tools, to the point it may at some point be possible to make all the changes to a genome that we want with no unwanted side effects.Once that's done, the first "designed" babies couldor willbe born. If all goes well and these guidelines are followed, they'll be healthier and free of a disease that could or would have been devastating.The question that manyhave is whether we'll see edits that happen for other purposes, to make babies smarter or stronger, not just healthier. The research the committee wants to allow wouldn't permit those sorts of changes. But it would prove that they are indeed possible.SEE ALSO:Depression may be our brain's way of telling us to stop and solve a problemJoin the conversation about this storyNOW WATCH: People in California are microdosing on LSD ' and they say it's making them more productive
Click here to read full news..
