Newspaper Page Text
Page 8B
T f ^btAAffe THE CHAMPION, THURSDAY, JANUARY 10 -16, 2019
Edit baby genes
for health, not
smarts
BY LAURAN NEER-
GAARD
WASHINGTON (AP)
Most Americans say it
would be OK to use gene
editing technology to create
babies protected against a
variety of diseases—but a
new poll finds they’d draw
the line at changing DNA so
children are bom smarter,
faster or taller.
A month after startling
claims of the births of the
world’s first gene-edited
babies in China, the poll
by The Associated Press-
NORC Center for Public Af
fairs Research finds people
are tom between the medi
cal promise of a technology
powerful enough to alter hu
man heredity and concerns
over whether it will be used
ethically.
Jaron Keener, a
31-year-old exhibit designer
at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie
Museum of Natural History,
said he’s opposed to “rich
people being able to create
designer babies.”
But like the majority of
Americans, Keener would
support gene editing in
embryos to prevent incur
able diseases. His mother
has lupus, an inflammatory
disease that may have both
environmental and genetic
triggers.
Lupus has been “a loom
ing presence my entire life.
I’ve been around somebody
with a chronic illness and
I’ve seen the toll that has
taken, not just on her life,
but the life of my family,”
he said.
Gene editing is like a
biological cut-and-paste
program, letting scientists
snip out a section of DNA
to delete, replace or repair
a gene. Altering adult cells
would affect only the patient
being treated.
But editing genes in
eggs, sperm or embryos
would alter the result
ing child in ways that
can be passed to future
generations—a step with
such profound implications
that international science
guidelines say it shouldn’t
be tested in human pregnan
cies until more lab-based
research determines it’s safe
to try.
TheAP-NORC poll
shows about seven in 10
Americans favor one day
using gene-editing technol
ogy to prevent an incur
able or fatal disease a child
otherwise would inherit,
such as cystic fibrosis or
Huntington’s disease.
Roughly two-thirds of
Americans also favor us
ing gene editing to prevent
a child from inheriting a
non-fatal condition such as
blindness, and even to re
duce the risk of diseases that
might develop later in life,
such as cancers.
Side effects are pos
sible, such as a gene-editing
attempt that accidentally
alters the wrong DNA spot,
and the poll finds 85 percent
think that risk is at least
somewhat likely.
But about seven in 10
Americans oppose using
gene editing to alter capa
bilities such as intelligence
or athletic talent, and to alter
physical features such as
eye color or height.
The poll highlights that
if gene editing of embryos
ever moves into fertility
clinics, there will be some
hard choices about what
non-fatal disorders should
qualify, said Columbia
University bioethicist Dr.
Robert Klitzman. What
if scientists could pinpoint
genes involved with depres
sion or autism or obesity—
would they be OK to edit?
“It’s one thing to look at
the extremes of fatal diseas
es versus cosmetic things,
but in the middle are going
to be these very different
issues,” Klitzman said.
That reported gene edit
ing in China was an attempt
to create babies resistant
to HIV infection, a target
that many scientists in the
U.S. and elsewhere decried
because there are effective
ways to prevent the AIDS
virus.
The poll shows most peo
ple think it is at least some
what likely that gene edit
ing could wipe out certain
inherited diseases and lead
to other medical advances.
Yet despite the medical
enthusiasm, more Ameri
cans oppose than favor
government funding for
testing on human embryos
to develop gene-editing
technology—48 percent to
26 percent. About another
quarter of the population
takes no stand.
Without that research,
how could gene editing
ever become a choice for
families hoping to avoid a
disease?
“'That’s a good ques
tion,” said Keener, the
Pittsburgh museum worker,
who opposes such funding
for fear that research would
lead to designer babies
rather than fighting disease.
“If there would be a
way to narrow the scope of
research, I would be OK
with government funding,”
he said. “I just don’t have
a lot of confidence people
wouldn’t use it for their own
gain.”
Indeed, the poll uncov
ers a lack of trust in science:
About a third think this kind
of gene editing will be used
before it’s adequately tested,
as many scientists say hap
pened in China. Nearly 9 in
10 people think the technol
ogy will be used for un
ethical reasons, including 52
percent who say this is very
likely to happen.
And roughly three-quar
ters of Americans say gene
editing probably wouldn’t
be affordable for the average
person—raising the specter
of certain genetic diseases
becoming a problem only
for the poor.
“People appear to realize
there’s a major question of
how we should oversee and
monitor use of this technol
ogy if and when it becomes
available,”’ said Colum
bia’s Klitzman. “What is
safe enough? And who
will determine that? The
government? Or clinicians
who say, ‘Look, we did it in
Country X a few times and
it seems to be effective.’”
