PET: Survey shows 53% of Britons support genome editing to prevent serious diseases

The Ipsos poll, commissioned by fertility and genomics charity Progress Educational Trust (PET), found that 53% of people support using human genome editing to prevent children from developing serious diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

According to the survey, Britons were less enthusiastic about using the technology to prevent milder conditions such as asthma, with just 36% in favour, while only one in five supported the creation of designer babies, but views on the technology varied greatly by age.

Younger generations are far more in favor of "designer babies" than older ones, with 38% of 16 to 24-year-olds and 31% of 25 to 34-year-olds supporting the use of gene editing to allow parents to choose characteristics such as their child's height, eye and hair color.

Genome editing of embryos used to carry out pregnancy is illegal in the UK and many other countries, but those restrictions could be lifted if research shows the technique can safely prevent serious diseases.

Genome editing has been hailed as a potential game-changer in tackling a range of genetic diseases, including cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy as well as Tay-Sachs disease, a rare disorder that progressively destroys the nervous system. In principle, the faulty genes that cause these diseases could be rewritten in IVF embryos, allowing them to develop into healthy babies.

Despite the tremendous progress in the field, work still needs to be done to perfect genome editing and ensure it doesn’t cause unintended changes to DNA, which would affect every cell in a child’s body and potentially be passed on to future generations because the edits would be made in the embryo.

In 2018, researcher He Jiankui provoked global condemnation when he announced he had attempted to edit the genomes of two baby girls in hopes of making them immune to HIV. He was later jailed for violating medical regulations. The furor led to an international committee convened by Britain’s Royal Society and others, which concluded that genome editing is far from ready for clinical use.

In a report on its findings, the PET said that if genome editing is used for medical purposes it must be done in a "scientifically and ethically rigorous manner".

The authors said it was "alarming" that younger people were more likely to be open to editing of the human genome for preferred traits, such as eye and hair color. "These views warrant attention, but we should continue to prioritize medical needs first," they wrote.

John Harris, emeritus professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, said he supported parents having the "widest possible choice" in selecting their children's physical characteristics if those characteristics themselves were not harmful.

"I think there is nothing wrong in principle with engineering traits into our children that are harmless or better than they already are, if we can," he said. "If there is nothing wrong with wishing for a brown-eyed girl, how can it be wrong to implement that wish if you have the power to do so? We are ready to cry eugenics when people want to exercise innocent preferences."

Two-thirds of people think the NHS should provide fertility treatment for both infertile people and those trying to conceive, according to a nationally representative survey of 2,233 UK adults, but the report notes that access to free IVF remains "postcode luck medical care". Support was highest for childless heterosexual couples at 49%, while just 19% were in favour of the NHS providing fertility treatment for singles or transgender people.

“It is disappointing that, despite sex discrimination being illegal in the UK, attitudes to family structure remain traditional,” said Professor Alison Murdoch, chair of the British Fertility Society. “The better news, however, is that most people do not seem to be opposed to IVF – a significant change from 40 years ago. IVF is now a routine procedure, so why doesn’t the NHS give people a chance?”

From cnBeta.COM