Their work has been widely condemned by other scientists and watchdog groups, who argue the research is unsafe, premature and raises disturbing ethical concerns.

Changes in gene editions have reached a point that challenges existing legal, regulatory and risk assessment systems, with some applications raising ethical concerns around the world.

Should New Zealand's 16-year-old laws governing biotechnology be overhauled?

The Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor Dr Juliet Gerrard says our current law is no longer fit for purpose.

She's backed by the Royal Society, which in August issued a discussion document calling for urgent discussion and debate.

The Royal Society Genetic noted that technologies such as gene editing are developing quickly, and their cost is rapidly falling.

They say this is creating new approaches in health care, environmental management and food production.

Aotearoa New Zealand needs to ensure that its regulatory framework can accommodate these technological developments while protecting our unique environment and indigenous and cultural heritage.

The status of Maori as tangata whenua of Aotearoa, the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ the Treaty of Waitangi, and kaitiakitanga create a unique context in which New Zealand's regulatory framework needs to sit.

Other places such as USA, Europe, Australia and Japan, are currently reviewing their regulatory systems.

The Royal Society Te Aparangi Gene Editing Panel recognises that its competence does not extend to every aspect of regulation design and writing.

However, the Panel's mandate does include examining and deliberating on the research evidence, the implications of gene-editing technologies, and identifying the issues which might need a policy response.

Click here to listen to Discussion on RNZ

Source

• rnz.co.nz
• wamc.org
• royalsociety.org.nz
• Image: wamc.org

It has concluded it's time for an overhaul of the regulations and that there's an urgent need for wide discussion and debate about gene editing within and across all New Zealand communities.

Expert panel Co-chair Dr David Penman said that there is a need to move on from a black and white view of "GM or not GM" - to a much more nuanced view that recognises a wide range of applications of the technology, some of which may be more acceptable to New Zealand communities than others.

He said that while there have been a number of international summits on the use of gene editing, it was important that New Zealand develop its own view.

"New Zealand needs to have its own perspective given our unique cultural heritage and environment, the special challenges we face in maintaining our biodiversity and a viable and productive primary industry, and our unique regulatory environment.

"Furthermore, there has been no review of gene technologies in New Zealand since the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification held in 2001 and the subsequent amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996).

But not everyone agrees with the Royal Commission's conclusions.

In 2014 New Zealand's High Court ruled that new gene-editing techniques are techniques of genetic modification.

A recent European court ruling also upheld this decision.

The existing legislation "remains robust and fit for purpose," says Jodie Bruning writing for Stuff.

Bruning says the existing legislation "has adopted a praiseworthy precautionary approach."

It recognises that unanticipated problems stemming from genetic engineering.

She says that there are many problems with potential applications of the new editing tools. The downstream consequences are difficult to anticipate.

Source

• royalsociety.org.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: labiotech.eu

George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, said the current controversy surrounding the editing of human embryos was overblown and compared it to the short lived moral panic that preceded the introduction of IVF or "test tube babies" in the late 1970s.

Interviewed for a feature in this week's Telegraph Magazine Church, who made his name as part of the international team that first mapped the human genome in 2003, said he was less worried about gene editing being used to enhance human intelligence than the technique being restricted to a privileged few. He predicted it would eventually be "adopted worldwide".

"I just don't think that blue eyes and [an extra] 15 IQ points is really a public health threat," he said, "I don't think it's a threat to our morality."

In November, a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, shocked the world by announcing he had used CRISPR-Cas9, a genetic editing tool Church helped pioneer, to disable a gene called CCR5 in the embryos of twin girls to make them resistant to HIV.

The move was condemned as 'monstrous' by scientists worldwide as it broke a long-standing scientific taboo - using an unproven technique to address a disease that is already treatable.

But while others expressed outrage, Church remained equivocal, telling Science magazine, "As long as these are normal, healthy kids, it's going to be fine for the field and the family."

In his interview with The Telegraph, Church went further, comparing the reaction to the announcement with the fear that surrounded the first use of IVF.

"For a while, it looked like In Vitro Fertilisation was going to be something that was not used, because everybody said ‘test tube babies!' that's really scary,'" he said. "Then one healthy baby later, Louise Brown in 1978, and suddenly it's OK."

Both attitudes, he said, were wrong: "We shouldn't have been panicking before it was tested, and we shouldn't have been giving it the green light just based upon one baby".

He added: "It's very likely to be the same thing with edited babies - especially if it protects us against serious diseases like HIV. It could be analogous to a vaccine, right? That's something that would be adopted worldwide."

Genetic editing already holds the promise of eradicating sickle cell anaemia and certain inherited kinds of blindness and cancer. But if we start editing the genes of embryos to resist disease, many worry it will only be a matter of time before we start to enhance them for intelligence or other desirable traits.

Further, by editing an embryo's genes you create a change that is passed on through the generations.

Stephen Hawking's final prediction, in an essay published after his death a year ago this week, was that the wealthiest strata of society would soon begin editing their own and their children's DNA to create a ‘superhuman' race, with enhanced memory, disease resistance, intelligence and longevity - dividing humanity into genetic ‘haves' and ‘have-nots'. Continue reading