In light of the recent article published in Nature, human germline genome editing in the US has taken a front and center stage in the ethical principles and scientific boundaries of modern science. Researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) in Portland, led by reproductive biologist Shoukhrat Mitalipov, corrected a gene mutation responsible for thickening of the heart muscle in viable human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing. Targeting a dominant mutation that leads to heart failure, the researchers obtained about 70% success rate in fixing the mutation. The success rate was due to technical advances that had previously limited other groups trying to repair inherited diseases. The research demonstrated the feasibility of eliminating or correcting a genetically inherited disease.

According to the Genetic Disease Foundation there are over 6,000 genetic disorders including Down syndrome, Alzheimer’s, Sickle-cell disease, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis1. The authors targeted only one of the 6,000 inherited diseases, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. This inherited disease effects 1 in 500 adults and has no boundaries regarding race or sex2. Sadly, in teenagers and young adults, it is responsible for cardiac arrest3. The impact of this article brings overwhelming hope to individuals affected with an inherited disease. However, changes to the genetic makeup of individuals raises many concerns.

In a response to potential misuse and poor oversight of genome editing on humans, a policy statement was issued by 11 international groups to address ethical principles, scientific boundaries, and policy issues and published in The American Journal of Human Genetics. The groups included representatives from the American Society of Human Genetics, UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. It was further endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics. The authors agreed on the following:

  1. At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy.
  1. Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.
  1. Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is:
    1. A compelling medical rationale.
    2. An evidence base that supports its clinical use.
    3. An ethical justification.
    4. A transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

Although scientific breakthroughs can bring new hope to the prevention and cure of many human diseases, it is important to make sure that reasonable guidelines and cautions are used when adopting new and powerful technologies. Additionally, as pointed out by the members of the 11 international groups, it is equally important to make sure the medical and scientific communities, persons and families dealing with genetically based disabilities, and the general public is engaged when weighing the risks, benefits, alternatives, unknown consequences, and access to germline genome-editing.

References:
1. Genetic Disease Foundation

http://www.geneticdiseasefoundation.org/

2. American Heart Association

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/Cardiomyopathy/Hypertrophic-Cardiomyopathy_UCM_444317_Article.jsp#.WYs1dtPytTY

3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention

https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/cardiomyopathy.htm

Disclaimer

For Medical Professional Viewing Only

 

Stemell, Inc. does not claim that therapy using StemL products cures or prevents any condition, disease or injury. All statements and opinions provided are for educational and informational purposes only, and we do not diagnose or provide medical or legal advice.

Individuals interested in any cellular or cell-free regenerative medicine therapy are urged to review all pertinent information and do their own research and due diligence before choosing to participate in any therapies. Please consult with your physician for further information and be sure to discuss any potential risks.

Please understand that Stemell, Inc. is a supplier only. Stemell, Inc. is not a sponsor, and Stemell, Inc. is not claiming to cure or treat any disorder or condition.

This site was intended for education purposes only and strictly for use by medical professionals. The FDA recently re-confirmed, there is only one registered stem cell product, and while there is enormous promise in stem cell therapies, and thousands of ongoing experimental applications trying to establish efficacy, these are not at the point where they would meet the scientific standard.

The FDA has stated:
Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. FDA has not approved any stem cell-based products for use, other than cord blood-derived hematopoietic progenitor cells (blood forming stem cells) for certain indications.
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194655.htm

This site is not intended for consumers.
If you are considering stem cell treatment in the U.S., ask your physician if the necessary FDA approval has been obtained or if you will be part of an FDA-regulated clinical study. This also applies if the stem cells are your own. Even if the cells are yours, there are safety risks, including risks introduced when the cells are manipulated after removal.

“There is a potential safety risk when you put cells in an area where they are not performing the same biological function as they were when in their original location in the body.” Cells in a different environment may multiply, form tumors, or may leave the site you put them in and migrate somewhere else. If you are considering having stem cell treatment in another country, learn all you can about regulations covering the products in that country. Exercise caution before undergoing treatment with a stem cell-based product in a country that—unlike the U.S.—may not require clinical studies designed to demonstrate that the product is safe and effective. FDA does not regulate stem cell treatments used solely in countries other than the United States and typically has little information about foreign establishments or their stem cell products.
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm286155.htm

Stem cell therapies have enormous promise, but the science in each use is still in the developmental stage. Professional judgment and expertise is needed in using stem cells for any therapeutic use, and we urge anyone embarking on the use of stem cell therapies to consult the national health data bases to evaluate current information from clinical trials and the FDA websites on human tissue should also be consulted to get its current evaluation of any therapy.