Rewriting Our Genes? Prime Editing Doesn’t Resolve Moral Issues

Last updated on: October 22, 2019 at 3:37 pm by Fr. Matthew P. Schneider, LC

Rewriting Our Genes? Prime Editing Doesn’t Resolve Moral Issues 2019-10-22T15:37:59-04:00 Fr. Matthew P. Schneider, LC

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

CRISPR proteins illustration (CC BY-SA 4.0 Boghog https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:4QYZ.png)

This week, a new variation of CRISPR called “Prime Editing” has come into the spotlight. The main method used before was CAS9 which cuts the DNA but prime editing does only “nicks” the genes.

News of Prime Editing

The Guardian reported on this. Here are a few selections:

The procedure, named “prime editing”, can mend about 89% of the 75,000 or so harmful mutations known to mangle the human genome and lead to conditions such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia, and a nerve-destroying illness called Tay-Sachs disease. […]

“This first report of prime editing is the beginning rather than the end of a longstanding aspiration in the life sciences to be able to make any DNA change in any position of a living cell or organism, including potentially human patients with genetic diseases,” said David Liu at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts. […]

Writing in the journal Nature, the scientists describe how they made 175 different DNA edits to human cells with impressive precision. In one demonstration, they corrected mutations that cause the inherited blood disorder, sickle cell anaemia. In another, they removed the four extra DNA letters in a particular gene that cause Tay-Sachs disease, a rare condition that destroys children’s nerves and usually proves fatal by five years old.

Before prime editing, it was impossible to make such a range of DNA changes in so many different cell types without leaving behind insertions, deletions and other genetic detritus that can interfere with the workings of the edited cell. […]

While the efficiency of the edits – about 50% in some cases – would be good enough for scientists conducting basic research, he questioned whether it would be useful for scientists working on live animals.

Morals about Prime Editing

There are two moral arguments about this, which apply to any kind of gene-editing: IVF, and germ-line editing. After exploring those two, I will offer a side argument and some good news.

If a couple wants to prevent themselves from having kids with these genes that they have, they can do IVF. However, making babies outside a loving marital act has many issues. Catholic Teaching is clear on this and I don’t think I need to explain more (but you can read some articles where I’ve explained it more).

Second, we have the issue of editing germline cells, sperm and egg, as these will be passed on to others. In general, most countries and the international community are moving towards banning these. I pointed out earlier that the arguments against a moratorium are inadequate.

A big argument here is that Prime Editing is so much more accurate and less likely for genetic side effects than CRISPR-CAS9. I would be a little hesitant to proclaim this so soon. When CRISPR-CAS9 came out, scientists thought it had few side effects but later on, they discovered it made insertions and deletions in places they didn’t look. Plus, as they themselves admit, I don’t know if 50% success is good enough for inserting gene-editing enzymes into my body. In some medicine, 50% is worth trying but the possible negative side effects of gene-editing make most of us a little more cautious.

The good news about this is that if it is done without touching the germline, we can evaluate it on par with other medical procedures. We could theoretically now, and probably in the coming decades, insert these enzymes into a gland that fails to make a hormone due to genetics or into a cancer cell to turn off its rapid replication. There is no particular moral issue with changing the genes in non-germline cells to correct a serious dysfunction.

Note: Please sponsor me on Patreon so I can write more on genetics and bioethics.

Previous Post

October 17, 2019

Christians, Please Call Us Autistic, Blind, and Deaf

Next Post

October 23, 2019 Autistic Confession: Tips for Both Sides of the Screen

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Autism Bioethics Book Review Business and Economics Catholic Social Teaching Culture Diocesan Life Disability Discipleship Euthanasia Family Life Genetics Global Politics History Immigration Inspiration Interview Liturgy Moral Theology My Life News Analysis Original Articles Prayer Privacy Pro-Life Science Sexual orientation or identity Social Media Sports Technology Theology Uncategorized US Politics Vatican

Select a Month March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz