Scientists hope to persuade U.S. lawmakers DNA manipulation is safe

WASHINGTON—Tinkering with human DNA is inevitable, four scientists told U.S. House members Tuesday. But they did not mention the certain deaths of human embryos if such research is allowed to continue.

The scientists came before the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology to explain human DNA engineering that, if implemented, could change human DNA permanently and pass the changes to future generations. But they ignored many of the ethical issues behind the research.

“They really have envisioned this as an exciting period of research,” said David Prentice with the pro-life Lozier Institute. “They don’t consider … there will be many human beings created and destroyed in the process.”

The hearing came in reaction to an April report by Chinese scientists about their failed experiments on human embryos. The scientists hoped to alter all of the cells in 85 embryos without ruining them. But the embryos died, were not altered, or ended up with genetic defects.

If this research succeeds eventually, scientists could make permanent changes to human reproductive cells that will be passed from generation to generation. Scientists call this working with the “germ-line.”

“I think this is an exciting moment in biology, but it also raises various questions,” Dr. Jennifer Doudna told House members.

Doudna explained her belief the research could provide cures to disorders like sickle cell anemia, muscular dystrophy, and Huntington’s disease. She recalled a scientist in her group saying it could eventually be considered unethical not to use such technological abilities.

“I think we all in this room understand the potential,” said Rep. Ralph Abraham, R-La.

But the researchers use unethical methods to produce uncertain results, Prentice said: “For us to say they are willing to experiment on a living human being, I have a problem with that.”

Jeffrey Kahn, a professor of bioethics, told lawmakers he understood people have problems “tampering with the very features that determine our identity, and even our humanity.”

But, he said, U.S. regulations are highly unlikely to stop the research.

In a response to a question by Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., Kahn admitted DNA manipulation research is increasingly cheaper and simple enough to happen in a laboratory basement.

“The reality is that it could be very hard to put regulations on this,” Doudna said, adding she thinks safe germ-line editing could happen in a few years.

Prentice is skeptical about her claim such research is inevitable.

“I think society can say no to this kind of experiment, if our government has the will to say no and make this a criminal act, to design and manufacture human beings,” he said.

Modification of the human germ-line once was a line the scientific community worried about crossing, Kahn said. He assured lawmakers they would proceed slowly and said he worried U.S. federal regulations could make scientists want to leave the country.

When one lawmaker asked for advice on federal action, Doudna said she worries U.S. leadership in science is slipping.

“It cannot be overstated how important federal funding is for research,” Dr. Elizabeth McNally told the lawmakers. “We can’t move forward without that federal investment.”

But McNally misses part of the story behind human DNA research, Prentice said.

“Instead of prohibiting the research, they want to regulate it so they can proceed … they don’t consider the human side of their research,” he said.