No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Genome Editing in Medicine: A Scoping Review of Ethical, Bioethical, and Medico-Legal Implications
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2025
Abstract
Genome editing, prominently led by the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 technology, is a powerful tool with significant applications in diverse fields, particularly in medicine and agriculture. It empowers scientists with the ability to effect precise genetic modifications, thereby potentially paving the way for advanced treatments for genetic disorders such as Huntington’s disease, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis. Yet, the significant capabilities of this technology also brings to the fore a myriad of intricate bioethical, legal, and regulatory dilemmas. In light of these complexities, this article endeavors to conduct a comprehensive scoping review of the existing literature on the most significant ethical implications emanating from genome editing. In conducting this review, we utilized the power of software tools like EndNote and Rayyan to aid in the systematic and thorough review of the literature. EndNote, a reference management software, was instrumental in organizing and managing the references and bibliographies, while Rayyan, a web application designed for managing and screening records for systematic and scoping reviews, proved crucial in the import and management of text records for the review.The review identified as main aspects of ethical, bioethical and medico-legal interest the exacerbation of social inequalities, safety concerns such as off-target mutations and immunological risks, ecological and evolutionary implications, and challenges to human dignity. It highlights the necessity for equitable access, rigorous regulation, and public engagement to address these issues responsibly.The ultimate objective of this article is to underscore the importance of an informed and inclusive dialogue regarding genome editing. Such dialogue is pivotal for fostering responsible innovation in this rapidly advancing field, ensuring that scientific progress aligns with ethical considerations. By presenting a comprehensive examination of the ethical implications of genome editing, we aim to contribute to this ongoing dialogue and promote a balanced and nuanced understanding of this impactful technology.
- Type
- Independent Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
References
Testa, L.C. and Musunuru, K., “Base Editing and Prime Editing: Potential Therapeutic Options for Rare and Common Diseases,” BioDrugs 37 (2023): 453–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Mojica, F. J., et al., “Short Motif Sequences Determine the Targets of the Prokaryotic CRISPR Defence System,” Microbiology 155 (2009): 733–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Cao, J., Xiao, Q., and Yan, Q., “The Multiplexed CRISPR Targeting Platforms,” Drug Discovery Today: Technologies 28 (2018): 53–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Ran, F. A., et al., “Genome Engineering Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System,” Nature Protocols 8 (2013): 2281–308.Google ScholarPubMed
Ledford, H., “CRISPR Gene Editing in Human Embryos Wreaks Chromosomal Mayhem,” Nature 583 (2020): 17–18.Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, S. et al., “Whole Chromosome Loss and Genomic Instability in Mouse Embryos After CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing,” Nature Communications 12 (2021): 5855.Google ScholarPubMed
Li, Y. et al., “Ex Vivo Cell-Based CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing for Therapeutic Applications,” Biomaterials 234 (2020): 119711.Google ScholarPubMed
Behr, M., et al., “In Vivo Delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 Therapeutics: Progress and Challenges,” Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 11 (2021): 2150–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L., “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (2005): 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M. et al.,
The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015
: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015): 163–96.Google Scholar
Joseph, A.M. et al., “Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review,” Cureus 14 (2022): e31927.Google ScholarPubMed
Baethge, C., Goldbeck‐Wood, S., and Mertens, S., “SANRA — A Scale for the Quality Assessment of Narrative Review Articles,” Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (2019): 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Cribbs, A.P. and Perera, S.M., “Science and Bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing: An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fiction,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 90 (2017): 625.Google Scholar
Memi, F., Ntokou, A., and Papangeli, I., “CRISPR/Cas9 Gene-Editing: Research Technologies, Clinical Applications, and Ethical Considerations,” Seminars in Perinatology 42 (2018): 487–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shinwari, K., Tanveer, F., and Khalil, A.T., “Ethical Issues Regarding CRISPR-Mediated Genome Editing,” Current Issues in Molecular Biology 26 (2018): 103–110.Google ScholarPubMed
Brokowski, C. and Adli, M., “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool,” Journal of Molecular Biology 431 (2019): 88–101.Google ScholarPubMed
Ayanoğlu, F.B., Elçin, A.E., and Elçin, Y.M., “Bioethical Issues in Genome Editing by CRISPR-Cas9 Technology,” Turkish Journal of Biology 44 (2020): 110–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Mandrioli, M., “Genome Editing Among Bioethics and Regulatory Practices,” Biomolecules 12 (2021): 13.Google ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez-Avila, L.U., et al., “The Challenge of CRISPR-Cas Toward Bioethics,” Frontiers in Microbiology 12 (2021): 657981.Google ScholarPubMed
Lorenzo, D., et al., “Ethics and Genomic Editing Using the CRISPR-Cas9 Technique: Challenges and Conflicts,” NanoEthics 16 (2022): 313–21.Google Scholar
Almeida, M. and Ranisch, R., “Beyond Safety: Mapping the Ethical Debate on Heritable Genome Editing Interventions,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9 (2022): 1–14.Google Scholar
22. See Joseph, supra note 11.Google Scholar
See Cribbs, supra note 13; See Memi, supra note 18; See Mandrioli, supra note 19; See Lorenzo, supra note 20.Google Scholar
Sherkow, J. S., “CRISPR, Patents, and the Public Health,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 90 (2017): 667.Google ScholarPubMed
Tanne, J. H., “FDA Approves $3.5M Gene Therapy for Adults With Haemophilia B,” BMJ 379 (2022): o2858.Google ScholarPubMed
Subica, A. M., “CRISPR in Public Health: The Health Equity Implications and Role of Community in Gene-Editing Research and Applications,” American Journal of Public Health 113 (2023): 874–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Cribbs, supra note 13; Memi, supra note 14; Shinwari, supra note 15; Brokowski, supra note 16; Mandrioli, supra note 18; Lorenzo, supra note 20; Almeida, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Agar, N., “Why We Should Defend Gene Editing as Eugenics,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (2019): 9–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Id.
Google Scholar
See Joseph, supra note 11; Cribbs, supra note 13; Shinwari, supra note 15; Ayanoğlu, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Fu, Y., et al., “High-Frequency Off-Target Mutagenesis Induced by CRISPR-Cas Nucleases in Human Cells,” Nature Biotechnology 31 (2013): 822–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X.H., et al., “Off-Target Effects in CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Genome Engineering,” Molecular Therapy – Nucleic Acids 4 (2015): e264.Google ScholarPubMed
See Memi, supra note 14.Google Scholar
Crudele, J.M. and Chamberlain, J.S., “Cas9 Immunity Creates Challenges for CRISPR Gene Editing Therapies,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 3497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Brokowski, supra note 16; Ayanoğlu, supra note 17; Gonzalez-Avila, supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Mojica, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Greely, H.T., “CRISPR’d Babies: Human Germline Genome Editing in the ‘He Jiankui Affair’,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 6 (2019): 111–83.Google Scholar
Cavaliere, G., “Genome Editing and Assisted Reproduction: Curing Embryos, Society or Prospective Parents?,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (2018): 215–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keiper, F. and Atanassova, A., “Regulation of Synthetic Biology: Developments Under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Protocols,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 8 (2020): 310.Google ScholarPubMed
Grunewald, S., “CRISPR’s Creatures: Protecting Wildlife in the Age of Genomic Editing,” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 37 (2019): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Joseph, supra note 11; Almeida, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. and Hurlbut, J. B., “A Global Observatory for Gene Editing,” Nature 555 (2018): 435–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Bess, M., Our Grandchildren Redesigned: Life in the Bioengineered Society of the Near Future (Beacon Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Harris, J., Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People (Princeton University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, A. L., et al., “No Time to Waste — The Ethical Challenges Created by CRISPR: CRISPR/Cas, Being an Efficient, Simple, and Cheap Technology to Edit the Genome of Any Organism, Raises Many Ethical and Regulatory Issues Beyond the Use to Manipulate Human Germ Line Cells,” EMBO Reports 16 (2015): 1421–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Greely, supra note 37.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance (National Academies Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Ishii, T., “Germline Genome-Editing Research and Its Socioethical Implications,” Trends in Molecular Medicine 21 (2015): 473–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habermas, J., The Future of Human Nature (Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003).Google Scholar
Wan, Z., et al., “Sociotechnical Safeguards for Genomic Data Privacy,” Nature Reviews Genetics 23 (2022): 429–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Gostimskaya, I., “CRISPR–Cas9: A History of Its Discovery and Ethical Considerations of Its Use in Genome Editing,” Biochemistry (Moscow) 87 (2022): 777–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Id.
Google Scholar
See Gostimskaya, supra note 51; Campbell, M., “Broad Institute Wins CRISPR Patent Case,” Technology Networks, https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/broad-institute-wins-crispr-patent-case-359160 (last visited August 15, 2023); W. Isaacson and S. Durand, The Code Breaker — Young Readers Edition: Jennifer Doudna and the Race to Understand Our Genetic Code (Simon & Schuster, 2022).Google Scholar
WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing, Human Genome Editing: Recommendations (World Health Organization, July 2021).Google Scholar
WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing, Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance (World Health Organization, July 2021).Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and The Royal Society, Heritable Human Genome Editing (National Academies Press, 2020): 2; I.G. Cohen, J.S. Sherkow, and E.Y. Adashi, “Handle With Care: The WHO Report on Human Genome Editing,” Hastings Center Report 52 (2022): 10-14.Google Scholar
Conley, J.M., et al., “The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 23 (2023): 9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimberly, L., et al., “The Lived Experience of Pediatric Gene Therapy: A Scoping Review,” Human Gene Therapy 34 (2023): 1180–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Issues (The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2018), https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publication/genome-editing-and-human-reproduction-social-and-ethical-issues/ (last visited March 2, 2025).Google Scholar