Why Democrats reopened the debate about germline gene editing
From the article:
Research advocates say there’s a way for Congress to roll back the ban on MRT without opening the door to other types of heritable gene editing in or accusations of “designer babies” — or inviting the kind of political criticism that characterized this month’s appropriations debate.
“One easy, quick suggestion would be to differentiate mitochondrial replacement therapy” from the other types of germline gene editing, said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard law professor specializing in bioethics and health law. “That would then let FDA evaluate it directly, which it is currently prohibited from doing.”
Even some Republicans agreed — in particular Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a former NIH-funded scientist, who said science has outstripped Congress and that lawmakers should reconsider the provisions relating to MRT specifically.
“In theory, if the scientific community wanted to advance this ball in the U.S., it probably would be easier because some academics could start some mitochondrial replacement trials,” Werner said.
Nobody in industry is currently using germline editing to create embryos without disease traits, he reiterated, and “nobody in industry even seems to want to go down that road.”