Book contents
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Part I Biology of Endonucleases (Zinc-Finger Nuclease, TALENs and CRISPRs) and Regulatory Networks
- Part II Genome Editing in Model Organisms
- Part III Technology Development and Screening
- Part IV Genome Editing in Stem Cells and Regenerative Biology
- Part V Genome Editing in Disease Biology
- Part VI Legal (Intellectual Property) and Bioethical Issues of Genome Editing
- 28 Patenting of CRISPR-based Inventions
- 29 Patent, Ownership and Licensing Issues of CRISPR-based Genome Editing: Impact on Universities and their Licensees
- 30 The Ethics of Human Genome Editing
- 31 Regulating Human Genome Editing: Negotiating Ethical Concerns Through Science and Policy
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
31 - Regulating Human Genome Editing: Negotiating Ethical Concerns Through Science and Policy
from Part VI - Legal (Intellectual Property) and Bioethical Issues of Genome Editing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2018
Book contents
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Genome Editing and Engineering
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Part I Biology of Endonucleases (Zinc-Finger Nuclease, TALENs and CRISPRs) and Regulatory Networks
- Part II Genome Editing in Model Organisms
- Part III Technology Development and Screening
- Part IV Genome Editing in Stem Cells and Regenerative Biology
- Part V Genome Editing in Disease Biology
- Part VI Legal (Intellectual Property) and Bioethical Issues of Genome Editing
- 28 Patenting of CRISPR-based Inventions
- 29 Patent, Ownership and Licensing Issues of CRISPR-based Genome Editing: Impact on Universities and their Licensees
- 30 The Ethics of Human Genome Editing
- 31 Regulating Human Genome Editing: Negotiating Ethical Concerns Through Science and Policy
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genome Editing and EngineeringFrom TALENs, ZFNs and CRISPRs to Molecular Surgery, pp. 454 - 463Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Boeke, JD, Church, G, Hessel, A, et al. 2016. Genome engineering: the Genome Project-Write. Science 353: 126–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, M. 1999. Regulating the reproduction business? Med Law Rev 7: 166–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaway, E. 2016a. Plan to synthesize human genome triggers mixed response. Nature 534: 163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaway, E. 2016b. Second Chinese team reports gene editing in human embryos. Nature 530: 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S, Donovan, PJ, Douglas, T, et al. 2015. Genome editing technologies and human germline genetic modification: the Hinxton Group Consensus Statement. Am J Bioeth 15: 42–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, S, Harris, J. 2006. The ethics of gene therapy. Curr Opin Mol Ther 8: 377–383.Google ScholarPubMed
Chan, S, Medina Arellano, M-D-J. 2016. Genome editing and international regulatory challenges: lessons from Mexico. Ethics Med Publ Health 2(3): 426–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endy, D, Zoloth, L. 2016. Should we synthesise a human genome? Cosmos, 12 May, https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/should-we-synthesise-a-human-genome (accessed August 2016).Google Scholar
Ginn, SL, Alexander, IE, Edelstein, ML, Abedi, MR, Wixon, J. 2013. Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2012: an update. J Gene Med 5: 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacein-Bey-Abina, S, Garrigue, A, Wang, GP, et al. 2008. Insertional oncogenesis in 4 patients after retrovirus-mediated gene therapy of SCID-X1. J Clin Invest 118: 3132–3142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holm, S. 1993. The spare embryo: a red herring in the embryo experimentation debate. Health Care Anal 1: 63–66; discussion 67–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/contents (accessed November 2017).Google Scholar
Isasi, RM. 2009. Policy interoperability in stem cell research: demystifying harmonization. Stem Cell Rev 5: 108–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isasi, RM, Knoppers, BM. 2006. Mind the gap: policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. Eur J Health Law 13: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, X, He, W, Huang, Y, et al. 2016. Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3 PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. J Assist Reprod Genet 33: 581–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, J. 2008. The ethics of human gene transfer. Nat Rev Genet 9: 239–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanphier, E, Urnov, F, Haecker, SE, Werner, M, Smolenski, J. 2015. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519: 410–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, P, Xu, Y, Zhang, X, et al. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 6: 363–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, E. 1999. Gene therapy death prompts review of adenovirus vector. Science 286: 2244–2245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollack, A. 2016. Scientists talk privately about creating a synthetic human genome. New York Times, 13 May, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html (accessed August 2016).Google Scholar
Reardon, S. 2016. US panel greenlights creation of male “three-person” embryos. Nature 530: 142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savulescu, J. 2001. Harm, ethics committees and the gene therapy death. J Med Ethics 27: 148–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UNESCO. 1998. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001229/122990eo.pdf (accessed November 2017).Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2011. Creating the “ethics industry”: Mary Warnock, in vitro fertilization and the history of bioethics in Britain. Biosocieties 6: 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar