Journals / Turkish Journal of Biology / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2

Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology

Pages
110–120
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The social and bioethical concerns in relation to human beings, otherorganisms, and the environment are addressed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Genome editing technologies have led to fundamental changes in genetic science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Among them, CRISPR-Cas9 technologyparticularly stands out due to its advantages such as easy handling, high accuracy, and low cost.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The social and bioethical concerns in relation to human beings, otherorganisms, and the environment are addressed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Genome editing technologies have led to fundamental changes in genetic science. Among them, CRISPR-Cas9 technologyparticularly stands out due to its advantages such as easy handling, high accuracy, and low cost. It has made a quick introduction infields related to humans, animals, and the environment, while raising difficult questions, applications, concerns, and bioethical issuesto be discussed. Most concerns stem from the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically alter human germline cells and embryos (calledgermline genome editing). Germline genome editing leads to serial bioethical issues, such as the occurrence of undesirable changesin the genome, from whom and how informed consent is obtained, and the breeding of the human species (eugenics). However, thebioethical issues that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could cause in the environment, agriculture and livestock should also not be forgotten.In order for CRISPR-Cas9 to be used safely in all areas and to solve potential issues, worldwide legislation should be prepared, takinginto account the opinions of both life and social scientists, policy makers, and all other stakeholders of the sectors, and CRISPR-Cas9applications should be implemented according to such legislations. However, these controls should not restrict scientific freedom. Here,various applications of CRISPR-Cas9 technology, especially in medicine and agriculture, are described and ethical issues related togenome editing using CRISPR-Cas9 technology are discussed. The social and bioethical concerns in relation to human beings, otherorganisms, and the environment are addressed.

🔖

Cite This Article

ELÇİN, Y. M., AYANOĞLU, F. B., ELÇİN, A. E. (2022). Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Turkish Journal of Biology, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2, 110–120. https://ajindex.com/articles/600191

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Amoasii L, Hildyard JC, Li H, Sanchez-Ortiz E, Mireault A et al. (2018). Gene editing restores dystrophin expression in a canine model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Science 362 (6410): 86-91.
  2. Amoroso PJ, Wenger LL (2003). The human volunteer in military biomedical research. In: Beam TE, Sparacino LR, Pellegrino ED, Hartle AE, Howe EG (editors). Military Medical Ethics. Volume 2. Washington, DC, USA: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, pp. 563-660. Arévalo MT, Navarro A, Arico CD, Li J, Alkhatib O et al. (2014). Targeted silencing of anthrax toxin receptors protects against anthrax toxins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 289 (22): 15730-15738.
  3. Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348 (6230): 36-38.
  4. Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H, Richards M, Boyaval P et al. (2007). CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315 (5819): 1709-1712. Beriain IDM, del Cano AMM (2018). Gene editing in human embryos. A comment on the ethical issues involved. In: Soniewicka M (editor). The Ethics of Reproductive Genetics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 173-187.
  5. Black CK, Termanini KM, Aguirre O, Hawksworth JS, Sosin M (2018). Solid organ transplantation in the 21st century. Annals of Translational Medicine 6 (20): 409. Brokowski C (2018). Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut it? CRISPR Journal 1 (2): 115-125.
  6. Cai L, Zheng LA, He L (2018). The forty years of medical genetics in China. Journal of Genetics and Genomics 45 (11): 569-582.
  7. Carroll D (2017). Focus: Genome editing: genome editing: past, present, and future. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 90 (4): 653. Cathomen T, Schüle S, Schüßler-Lenz M, Abou-El-Enein M (2019). The human genome editing race: loosening regulatory standards for commercial advantage? Trends in Biotechnology 37 (2): 120-123.
  8. Charlesworth CT, Deshpande PS, Dever DP, Camarena J, Lemgart VT et al. (2019). Identification of preexisting adaptive immunity to Cas9 proteins in humans. Nature Medicine 25 (2): 249. Chen H, Kazemier HG, de Groote ML, Ruiters MH, Xu GL et al. (2013). Induced DNA demethylation by targeting ten-eleven translocation 2 to the human ICAM-1 promoter. Nucleic Acids Research 42 (3): 1563-1574.
  9. Chin A (2015). CRISPR-Cas9 Therapeutics: A Technology Overview. Oxford, UK: Biostars. Collins FS (2015). Statement on NIH Funding of Research Using Gene-Editing Technologies in Human Embryos. Be