(upbeat music)
- There are two parts to this question.
Should we edit DNA in a
patient's somatic DNA,
the DNA that's only in
that's person's body?
And should we edit DNA in
a patient's Germline DNA,
the DNA that they pass
onto their children in
their sperm or their eggs?
Right now, the cautious
consensus in the USA and
some parts of Europe, is
that it makes sense to
do therapeutic gene editing
in a patient's somatic DNA,
because the patient or
the patient's parents can
give permission for
the editing to be done.
Not too far in the future,
I could choose to have
my tumor edited instead of cut out,
or have my T cells edited
to be resistant to HVI.
Regarding Germline editing,
do I have the right to
make these decisions for my
children, my grandchildren,
and all my future generations?
Some people say, "No, that's
taking too much power into
"our own hands.".
How do we know the edited sequence won't
cause some other problem?
The counter argument is that
we've been passing our DNA onto
our children for thousands of
years without knowing what's
in it, is this really any different just
because it's a human designing the
DNA sequence instead of random evolution?
Plus, if I edit a change into my child,
couldn't my child edit it
out with their children?
Why prevent a cure now for fear of a
future that might not come?
So some people think that
it's just too late for
these genie-in-a-bottle arguments.
The technology is here,
the applications are ready,
and we have people in need right now.
Gene editing for therapeutic purposes is
already going forward.
Perhaps we should be spending
our time figuring out how to
do it right rather than
worrying over whether
we should be doing it at all.
