THE ethics of gene therapy in humans has been discussed for many years and is being widely debated at present. Essentially all observers have stated that they believe that it would be ethical to insert genetic material into a human being for the sole purpose of medically correcting a severe genetic defect in that patient, that is somatic cell gene therapy. Somatic cell gene therapy for a patient suffering a serious genetic disorder would be ethically acceptable if carried out under the same strict criteria that cover other new and experimental medical procedures. The techniques that are now being developed for human application are for somatic cell, not germ line gene therapy. The question examined here is: What criteria should be used in evaluating gene therapy protocols?[39] | NATURE vs NURTURE  |
Three general requirements first presented in 1980 are that it should be shown in animal studies that (I) the new gene can be put into the correct target cells and will remain there long enough to be effective (II) the new gene will be expressed in the cell at an appropriate level and (III) the new gene will not harm the cell or by extension, the animal. These three requisites are summarized as delivery, expression and safety, respectively.[15][16]
Germline therapy is a more difficult issue. The problem is that the techniques used for germline correction of inherited diseases are exactly the same techniques that could be used for germline manipulation of other inherited characteristics. Indeed, the development of this technique with animals has not been prompted by any desire to cure genetic diseases, the aims being to ‘improve’ farm animals, for example by making genetic changes that result in lower fat content. This type of manipulation, where the genetic constitution of an organism is changed in a directed, heritable fashion, is clearly unacceptable for humans. At present, technical problems mean that human germline manipulation would be difficult. Before these problems are solved, we should ensure that the desire to do good should not raise the possibility of doing tremendous harm.[48] |
 |
