Embryo Editing Gets Green Light in the UK

[rablissful]

Just got this article from The Scientist and thought it was interesting. Obviously it's in the very early stages. Thoughts?

Embryo Editing Gets Green Light in the UK

Full text behind spoilers for those of you who can't/don't want to click the link.

SPOILER: Click to show

Researchers in the U.K. will soon use precision genome-editing on human embryos in an effort to probe the mysteries of early development. And they’ll do it with the blessing of government regulators. On Monday (February 1), the U.K.’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) made the unprecedented step of approving a project involving the editing of genes in early human embryos.



Scientists in China made headlines last year when they announced their application of CRISPR/Cas9 to modify structurally deficient human zygotes. The April Protein & Cell paper reporting the findings set off alarm bells across the life science community, dividing researchers between those who thought the move was premature and ill-advised and those who warned of the dangers of stifling such research.



The UK researchers who will apply the technique to early human embryos, which will be destroyed after seven days of growth, are the first scientists to conduct such experiments with clearance from their government’s regulatory authorities. “China has guidelines, but it is often unclear exactly what they are until you've done it and stepped over an unclear boundary,” Robin Lovell-Badge, scientific adviser to the HFEA, told BBC News. “This is the first time it has gone through a properly regulatory system and been approved.”



Lovell Badge is also a researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, where the research will take place. Her Francis Crick Institute colleague, developmental biologist Kathy Niakan, is the researcher who applied for the approval from the HFEA. Niakan and her team will use CRISPR/Cas9 to block the activity of OCT4, a crucial regulatory gene, in early embryonic cells. “I am delighted that the HFEA has approved Dr Niakan’s application,” Francis Crick Institute Director Paul Nurse in a statement (via Nature). “Dr Niakan’s proposed research is important for understanding how a healthy human embryo develops and will enhance our understanding of IVF [in vitro fertilization] success rates, by looking at the very earliest stage of human development.”

[goldenlove3]

Hmmm it kind of reminds me of how scientists tweaked the genes of chickens to make them grow teeth like dinosaurs. That's what I'm picturing anyway. Normally I'd be all for science but H and I had to decide what to do with any frozen embryos in case we both died and we originally decided to donate for research. I don't really like the idea of this happening to them though.

[RajahMD]

I guess I'm struggling to see how stopping development will teach them anything about how to encourage development for IVF.

I'm assuming that science is fully fleshed out, they just left it out of the article. I'd be curious to read the application.

Also, it seems a little counter-intuitive to create embryos solely to destroy them in order to learn how to encourage development of other embryos. So I wonder where they are getting these embryos. Are they created solely for this research project or are they donated by couples who have extras or can't use their's?

[cnf2013]

Feb 2, 2016 12:22:44 GMT -5 RajahMD said:

I guess I'm struggling to see how stopping development will teach them anything about how to encourage development for IVF.

I'm assuming that science is fully fleshed out, they just left it out of the article. I'd be curious to read the application.

Also, it seems a little counter-intuitive to create embryos solely to destroy them in order to learn how to encourage development of other embryos. So I wonder where they are getting these embryos. Are they created solely for this research project or are they donated by couples who have extras or can't use their's?

These are my initial thoughts as well. I feel a little torn about this, honestly. 

[rablissful]

I think the point of the research is to figure out how to change genes, so that in the future they could find an embryo that has, say, cystic fibrosis and seeing if they can fix it so that it is normal. Or an embryo that has a trisomy and trying to take out the extra chromosome.

This could greatly help couples who go through IVF then find out through the screening that none of their embryo's are viable due to genetic disorders. It could save them from multiple cycles.

It could also help embryos that seem to not grow well (and therefor aren't viable) in figuring out why by looking at the genetics.


I'm assuming they're being destroyed because (a) it isn't legal to implant the embryo's and (b) on paper they may have "fixed" the embryo, but they don't know without further testing if the embryo will be viable when inserted for IVF. It will likely be ages before that type of testing and genetically modified embryos will be able to be implanted.

[rablissful]

Obviously there are huge ethical implications here for actual practice, but actual practice probably won't be available for at least a decade.

Even then it will likely be highly regulated.

[piccyami]

I'm with starbuck27 and also RajahMD. I just don't know how I feel about this.

[daisy818]

Here's the press release from the Institute doing the study. Tl;dr: The embryos are donated by couples who have excess from IVF, and they are studying the first 7 days of embryonic development.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has approved a research application from the Francis Crick Institute to use new "gene editing" techniques on human embryos.

The aim of the research, led by Dr Kathy Niakan, a group leader at the Crick, is to understand the genes human embryos need to develop successfully.

The work carried out at the Crick will be for research purposes and will look at the first seven days of a fertilised egg's development (from a single cell to around 250 cells).

The knowledge acquired from the research will be important for understanding how a healthy human embryo develops.

This knowledge may improve embryo development after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and might provide better clinical treatments for infertility, using conventional medical methods.

Paul Nurse, director of the Crick, said: "I am delighted that the HFEA has approved Dr Niakan's application. Dr Niakan's proposed research is important for understanding how a healthy human embryo develops and will enhance our understanding of IVF success rates, by looking at the very earliest stage of human development - one to seven days."

In line with HFEA regulations, any donated embryos will be used for research purposes only and cannot be used in treatment. These embryos will be donated by patients who have given their informed consent to the donation of embryos which are surplus to their IVF treatment.

The genome editing research now needs to gain ethical approval and, subject to that approval, the research programme will begin within the next few months.

[ceejay]

Feb 2, 2016 12:26:42 GMT -5 starbuck27 said:

I keep writing, editing, deleting a response to this. I understand the impulse to eliminate genetic diseases, and I'm not against that, I just have extreme reservations about this kind of research in this day in age, from an ethical standpoint. And knowing that there are people out there using genetics to sex select chasing their dream of a perfect family, I wonder how that will translate when the option to edit becomes available...I guess I am a slippery-sloper.

And I keep hearing Ian Malcolm in my head: just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

These were my first thoughts as well. I get that there could be positive aspects to this type of technology, but this type of research makes me think that it's the first step towards a Gattaca type world where people can genetically design their babies. 

[RajahMD]

Feb 2, 2016 12:35:18 GMT -5 ceejay said:

Feb 2, 2016 12:26:42 GMT -5 starbuck27 said:

I keep writing, editing, deleting a response to this. I understand the impulse to eliminate genetic diseases, and I'm not against that, I just have extreme reservations about this kind of research in this day in age, from an ethical standpoint. And knowing that there are people out there using genetics to sex select chasing their dream of a perfect family, I wonder how that will translate when the option to edit becomes available...I guess I am a slippery-sloper.

And I keep hearing Ian Malcolm in my head: just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

These were my first thoughts as well. I get that there could be positive aspects to this type of technology, but this type of research makes me think that it's the first step towards a Gattaca type world where people can genetically design their babies. 

Gattaca is the stuff of nightmares. As someone with a genetic disorder (not usually lethal, though it can be), I worry about the implications a lot. I have a hard time putting all my feelings about that situation into words. While I certainly don't like my disorder and would love to have a normal life, I would be a completely different person if I didn't have my disorder. 

Gah. I don't know if I'm making any sense. This kind of stuff hits a little too close to home for me.

[longhornwino0907]

Feb 2, 2016 12:30:40 GMT -5 rablissful said:

It could also help embryos that seem to not grow well (and therefor aren't viable) in figuring out why by looking at the genetics.

I really don't know how I feel about the idea as a whole. But as someone who had 7 little fertilized eggs that didn't grow past four cells, despite having no MFI and no official diagnosis, I would have done anything to know why those didn't grow into viable embryos. The testing capability for egg quality isn't there, either, so "bad egg quality" was thrown at us as a diagnosis after this because no testing could be done on four cells. So I can see how testing like this could be so very valuable.

It's completely a slippery slope, though.

[rablissful]

Feb 2, 2016 12:43:05 GMT -5 longhornwino0907 said:

Feb 2, 2016 12:30:40 GMT -5 rablissful said:

It could also help embryos that seem to not grow well (and therefor aren't viable) in figuring out why by looking at the genetics.

I really don't know how I feel about the idea as a whole. But as someone who had 7 little fertilized eggs that didn't grow past four cells, despite having no MFI and no official diagnosis, I would have done anything to know why those didn't grow into viable embryos. The testing capability for egg quality isn't there, either, so "bad egg quality" was thrown at us as a diagnosis after this because no testing could be done on four cells. So I can see how testing like this could be so very valuable.

It's completely a slippery slope, though.

Definitely a slippery slope, but as you said it could give either a more complete diagnosis and possibly a way of treatment which could give you amazing IVF ladies a little peace of mind.

I think that it's one of those topics that are very OMG THIS IS SCARY because there could be so much abuse in practice (thanks to movies like GATTACA) and it's such unknown territory. I think this beginning research could shed light on how it could actually be used though.

[peaseblossom55]

Feb 2, 2016 12:26:42 GMT -5 starbuck27 said:

I keep writing, editing, deleting a response to this. I understand the impulse to eliminate genetic diseases, and I'm not against that, I just have extreme reservations about this kind of research in this day in age, from an ethical standpoint. And knowing that there are people out there using genetics to sex select chasing their dream of a perfect family, I wonder how that will translate when the option to edit becomes available...I guess I am a slippery-sloper.

And I keep hearing Ian Malcolm in my head: just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Yes my thoughts exactly.

[joy]

I find this fascinating and interesting.

Gene deletion in mice is the reason why we know so much about certain genes. But mice are mice and humans are humans. To a certain extent, they can be compared, but each model organism has its limitations for human comparison.

Obviously the major difference between this type of research in humans and mice is that we need human embryos to do this type of research. I realize this causes some moral issues. I guess my major point is that this type of research has been happening in fruit flies and mice for decades. Now they want to extend to humans. It's logical and natural; we have to decide how we feel about it morally.

[joy]

Feb 2, 2016 12:13:58 GMT -5 goldenlove3 said:

Hmmm it kind of reminds me of how scientists tweaked the genes of chickens to make them grow teeth like dinosaurs. That's what I'm picturing anyway.

For clarity - this is not at all what is being proposed.

The scientists are going to take a very early human embryo and then delicately remove the function of one gene (Oct4).  Then they are going to monitor the growth of that embryo without that one gene to day 7.  That's it.

I don't know the background of Oct4, but I assume its implicated in having a very very important role in healthy embryo development.  This type of research can show just how important and necessary this gene truly is.

[joy]

Feb 2, 2016 12:22:44 GMT -5 RajahMD said:

Also, it seems a little counter-intuitive to create embryos solely to destroy them in order to learn how to encourage development of other embryos.

It does and doesn't.  Let's take this example of Oct4.  Perhaps the researchers find that Oct4 is absolutely essential for correct embryo development in those early days.  That is, removing it (via CRISPR technology) in these early embryos shows growth arrest of these embryos at day 6. 

This information can now be used in IVF screening of potential embryos for transfer.  A woman who routinely fails to have implantation of embryos could have her embryos screened for Oct4.  Is it mutated?  That could be contributing to her failure.  It could also be used in IVF to screen all embryos and only those with healthy Oct4 should be transferred.

[rablissful]

Feb 2, 2016 12:58:54 GMT -5 joy said:

I find this fascinating and interesting.

Gene deletion in mice is the reason why we know so much about certain genes. But mice are mice and humans are humans. To a certain extent, they can be compared, but each model organism has its limitations for human comparison.

Obviously the major difference between this type of research in humans and mice is that we need human embryos to do this type of research. I realize this causes some moral issues. I guess my major point is that this type of research has been happening in fruit flies and mice for decades. Now they want to extend to humans. It's logical and natural; we have to decide how we feel about it morally.

This. Exactly.

And right now it's only happening in embryos that were specifically donated to research. Embryos that will not be implanted or born.

I don't think any good and ethical scientist would ever try to put this fully into practice (or even be allowed to) until the beginning details (like this research) is completely and thoroughly studied.

But if the embryos are being donated specifically for scientific research, and the research is green lighted by the government (who is generally extremely conservative when it comes to human testing), I feel like this is just fascinating and can't wait to hear more about it... versus being scared of implications.



#alltheparentheses

[goldenlove3]

Feb 2, 2016 13:04:12 GMT -5 joy said:

Feb 2, 2016 12:13:58 GMT -5 goldenlove3 said:

Hmmm it kind of reminds me of how scientists tweaked the genes of chickens to make them grow teeth like dinosaurs. That's what I'm picturing anyway.

For clarity - this is not at all what is being proposed.

The scientists are going to take a very early human embryo and then delicately remove the function of one gene (Oct4).  Then they are going to monitor the growth of that embryo without that one gene to day 7.  That's it.

I don't know the background of Oct4, but I assume its implicated in having a very very important role in healthy embryo development.  This type of research can show just how important and necessary this gene truly is.

That is what I initially pictured but did read more about it and realize that it's not the case at all. Thanks for clarifying.