No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Balancing Progress and Precautions with Emerging Biotechnologies: Evaluating the Process of Gene Therapy Research Becoming “Normal”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2026
Abstract
In recent years, we have seen an immense expansion in recombinant DNA, especially in its use in gene therapy applications. Throughout its history, the United States set up several mechanisms of national safety and ethical oversight for rDNA to ensure that we proceeded with its use appropriately. As our knowledge and experience with it grew, there has been increasing pressure to decrease the oversight and monitoring requirements for its use. In 2019, the National Institutes of Health amended the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules eliminated three national mechanisms for guidance, monitoring, and review of this biotechnology. Four years later, we revisit these changes and their implications for a current emerging biotechnology: xenotransplantation. By better understanding the motivations for these mechanisms and analyzing the test case, we argue that these changes have worrisome implications for our ethical oversight of emerging biotechnologies both in the realm of gene transfer technologies and beyond.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Independent Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Estate of Stephanie Solomon Cargill, 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Footnotes
†
deceased.
References
“Recombinant DNA Technology,” National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Recombinant-DNA-Technology (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
There are a number of ways to define emerging technologies. The way in which this term is used throughout the paper is to designate either new technologies (e.g., xenotransplantation), or novel applications of established technologies (e.g., germline uses of rDNA) with uncertain risks and benefits in their application. Rotolo, Daniele et al, “What is an emerging technology?” Research Policy 44, no.10 (2015): 1827–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The reason to opt for guidelines instead of regulations is because the latter are an inflexible mechanism not suitable for the ethical assessment of emerging technologies with uncertain risks and benefits. The three proposed mechanisms in this paper aim to provide guidance across different technologies, which might have significant differences in implementation and allocation. Regulations are mandatory and provide specific rules that would not have broad applicability across technologies such as xenotransplantation or germline editing, especially before we discover how those technologies should be regulated.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, Donald S., “Asilomar and Recombinant DNA: The End of the Beginning,” in Biomedical Politics, ed. Hanna, Kathi E., (National Academies Press 1991): 258; Paul Berg et al, “Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Science 188, no. 4192 (1975): 991–94.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, Donald S., “The First Twenty-Five Years after Asilomar,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44, no. 2 (2001): 170–82, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2001.0025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
This was technically the second Asilomar Conference, since the initial National Academy of Science meeting also took place at Asilomar.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, Richard and Gottweis, Herbert, “Recombinant Regulation: The Asilomar Legacy 30 Years On.” Science as Culture 14, no. 4 (2005): 299–307, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430500368949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Fredrickson, “Asilomar and Recombinant DNA.”Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E., “Research and the Public Interest.” Research with Recombinant DNA: An Academy Forum (National Academy of Sciences 1977), 101–106.Google Scholar
In stark contrast to the 1st generation RAC, this Director’s Advisory Committee was populated with 20 members, which included scientists and medical experts that represented both the positions behind the Guidelines, such as attendees of Asilomar II, but also members who had been outspoken critics of this technology. It also included two college students, two ethicists, two lawyers, the President of the National Academic of Science, the president’s consumer advocate, and a judge.Google Scholar
In the ensuing years, Congress attempted to pass regulations for recombinant DNA technology several times, without success.Google Scholar
Not coincidentally, this was shortly after the implementation of the National Research Act, which required institutional review boards to review all federally funded human subjects research.Google Scholar
Rainsbury, Joseph M., “Biotechnology on the RAC--FDA/NIH regulation of human gene therapy,” Food and Drug Law Journal 55 (2000): 575.Google ScholarPubMed
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Splicing Life: The Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Beings, (United States National Technical Informational Service, 1982), 4.Google Scholar
Wivel, Nelson A. and Anderson, W. French, “Human Gene Therapy: Public Policy and Regulatory Issues,” in The Development of Human Gene Therapy, ed. Friedman, Theodore, (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1999), 671–89Google Scholar
United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment, “Human Gene Therapy — Background Paper” (Government Printing Office, 1984), https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/548858 (last visited December 15, 2025). There is notably not a consensus about germline gene therapy or use of somatic gene therapy for enhancement.Google Scholar
“Points to Consider in Human Somatic Cell Therapy and Gene Therapy” Human Gene Therapy 2, no. 3 (1991): 251–56, https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.1991.2.3-251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“About NIH, Mission and Goals,” National Institutes of Health, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/mission-goals (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
“What We Do, FDA Mission” United States Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
Mitchell, Aaron P. et al, “The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: Much More Than User Fees,” Medical Care 60, no. 4 (2022): 287–93, https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000001692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Rainsbury, “Biotechnology on the RAC--FDA/NIH regulation of human gene therapy.”Google Scholar
The document mentions risks to close contacts in one sentence near the end: “Use of viral vectors may in special cases require testing of clinical personnel or household contacts to confirm lack of infectious spread.”Google Scholar
“Historical Highlights of ClinicalTrials.Gov,” Boston University Medical Campus and Boston Medical Center, https://www.bumc.bu.edu/irb/files/2019/11/Historical-Highlights-of-ClinicalTrials.pdf (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
Although Gelsinger had the deficiency, he had a mild form that was relatively well-controlled with existing therapies.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Oversight and Review of Clinical Gene Transfer Protocols: Assessing the Role of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (National Academies Press, 2014), https://doi.org/10.17226/18577. [hereinafter cited as 2014 Report]; See Rainsbury, “Biotechnology on the RAC--FDA/NIH regulation of human gene therapy.”Google Scholar
See 2014 Report.Google Scholar
Eisenman, Daniel and Swindle, Scott, “FDA Guidance on Shedding and Environmental Impact in Clinical Trials Involving Gene Therapy Products,” Applied Biosafety 27, no. 3 (2022): 191–97, https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2022.0020; Daniel Eisenman, “The United States’ Regulatory Environment Is Evolving to Accommodate a Coming Boom in Gene Therapy Research,” Applied Biosafety 24, no. 3 (2019): 147–52, https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1535676019854866 (last visited December 15, 2025).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45 C.F.R.§ 46.111.a2 (2017).Google Scholar
Wivel, Nelson A., “Historical Perspectives Pertaining to the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee,” Human Gene Therapy 25, no. 1 (2014): 19–24, https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2013.2524; 2014 Report.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Frances S. and Gottlieb, Scott, “The Next Phase of Human Gene-Therapy Oversight,” New England Journal of Medicine 379, no. 15 (2018): 1393–95, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1810628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, James M., “The RAC Retires After a Job Well Done,” Human Gene Therapy Clinical Development 29, no. 3 (2018): 115–117, https://doi.org/10.1089/humc.2018.29034.wil; Xandra O. Breakefield, “Refocus the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee,” Nature Medicine 18, no. 7 (2012): 1007, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0712-1007. Notably, the authors of these two publications are James Wilson, the gene therapy pioneer and also PI on the trial where Jesse Gelsinger passed away; and the president of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, respectively.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Collins and Gottlieb, “The Next Phase of Human Gene-Therapy Oversight.”Google Scholar
Cooper, David K.C. et al, “A Brief History of Clinical Xenotransplantation,” International Journal of Surgery 23 (2015): 205–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.06.060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute of Medicine, Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (National Academies Press, 1996), https://doi.org/10.17226/5365 [hereinafter cited as IOM Report]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“History & Mission,” International Xenotransplantation Association, https://tts.org/ixa-about/ixa-history-mission (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, PHS Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2001), 2–3, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/phs-guideline-infectious-disease-issues-xenotransplantation (last visited December 15, 2025) [hereinafter cited as PHS Guideline]Google Scholar
See PHS Guideline, 42-43.Google Scholar
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Xenotransplantation, Informed Consent in Clinical Research Involving Xenotransplantation: Draft (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004), https://www.tts.org/77-ixa/ixa-news/434-ixa-islet-recommendations (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
“Breaking Ground in Transplantation: A New Era in Xenotransplantation,” National Kidney Foundation, May 31, 2024, https://www.kidney.org/news-stories/breaking-ground-transplantation-new-era-xenotransplantation (last visited December 15, 2025.Google Scholar
“Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee (NExTRAC),” National Institutes of Health Office of Science Policy, https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/novel-and-exceptional-technology-and-research-advisory-committee-nextrac/ (last visited December 15, 2025) [hereinafter cited as NExTRAC Website]Google Scholar
Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee (NExTRAC) Working Group, “Report to Establish a NExTRAC Framework,” (National Institutes of Health Office of Science Policy, December, 2020) [hereinafter cited as NExTRAC Report], https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/NExTRAC-Framework-Report_FINAL_508.pdf (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
See NExTRAC Report, 8.Google Scholar
Hurst, Daniel J. et al, “Recommendations to the IRB review process in preparation of xenotransplantation clinical trials,” Xenotransplantation 27, no. 2 (2020): 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12587 [hereinafter Hurst et al (2020)]; Daniel J. Hurst et al, “Close contacts of xenograft recipients: Ethical considerations due to risk of xenozoonosis,” Xenotransplantation 31, no. 2 (2024): e12847 [hereinafter Hurst et al (2024)], https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12847; Fritz H. Bach et al, “Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: Individual benefit versus collective risk,” Nature Medicine 4 (1998): 141–44, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0298-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See NExTRAC Website.Google Scholar
Tabak, Lawrence A., “CHARGE TO NExTRAC, ENGAGING THE PUBLIC AS PARTNERS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH” in NIH NexTRAC, August 29, 2023 Meeting Minutes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023), https://osp.od.nih.gov/events/novel-and-exceptional-technology-and-research-advisory-committee-4 (last visited December 15, 2025).Google Scholar
See Hurst et al (2020), Hurst et al (2024).Google Scholar
Kahn, Jeffrey P. and Mastroianni, Anna C., “Sunset on the RAC: When Is It Time to End Special Oversight of an Emerging Biotechnology?,” American Journal of Bioethics 18, no. 12 (2018): 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1540650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See 2014 Report.Google Scholar
See IOM Report, 2.Google Scholar
See MMWR Recommendations and Reports, “U.S. Public Health Service Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation,” Centers for Disease Control, August 24, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5015a1.htm.Google Scholar
See Collins and Gottlieb, “The Next Phase of Human Gene-Therapy Oversight.”Google Scholar
This topic of confidentiality with emerging technologies is challenging and crucial. They need transparency so that the adverse events and unintentional consequences from different trials can be shared to ensure review, but they also need to acknowledge the risks of public exposure of proprietary information. This issue is outside the scope of this paper, but definitely needs careful thought.Google Scholar
See Hurst et al (2020), Hurst et al (2024).Google Scholar
Kahn and Mastroianni, “Sunset on the RAC.”Google Scholar