Program on Science Technology and Society
GERMLINE ENGINEERING LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS |
from NBAC Report on Cloning Human Beings - June 1997 p. 97
"The closest analogy to a moratorium on cloning human beings may well be found in the existing moratorium on the use of germ line gene therapy, i.e., deliberate changes in human DNA intended to be inherited. A decade ago, the consensus was that no one could do gene therapy safely and reliably. Opinion split about the prudence of banning it. On the one hand, there seemed little harm in banning it, with some prospect of public assurance as a benefit. On the other hand, if the technology evolved sufficiently, one might imagine clinical scenarios, however rare, where it could be useful.
Policy on deliberate germ line intervention now varies from barely permissive to explicitly proscriptive. In the United States, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the National Institutes of Health (RAC) "will not at present entertain proposals for germ line alterations." This turn of phrase conveys that the RAC is not prepared to approve such experiments now, but it invites researchers to submit protocols that might offer an acceptable risk/benefit balance. This was a deliberate decision, as an outright ban was urged by the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) in 1985, but the RAC elected to stay with its language. German and Danish laws by constrast, say that such germ line intervention is a criminal act. Thus, for ten years, RAC has had a de facto ban on germ line gene therapy. If a concrete, clinically defensible proposal is ever made, RAC can simply choose to review the protocol if need be (Cook-Deegan 1997).
