Two groups of scientists at prominent US universities are trying to patent methods for editing human embryos, with reproductive use clearly intended. Yes, really. (1/7)
geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-t…
geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-t…
Reminder: heritable human genome editing (making #CRISPR babies) is prohibited in at least 70 countries! (2/7)
liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cr…
liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cr…
Shoukhrat Mitalipov and @OHSUNews have submitted a patent application for “correcting a mutant allele of a gene of interest in… a one-cell embryo and/or a human cell.” (3/7)
appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pa…
appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pa…
Dieter Egli and @Columbia have submitted a patent application for “Gene Editing to Correct Aneuploidies and Frame Shift Mutations,” specifically in the context of fertility treatments. (4/7)
patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/deta…
patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/deta…
Even if the patents aren’t granted, it’s outrageous to see individual scientists laying the groundwork to profit from heritable genome editing, which is wildly controversial for safety, ethical, and societal reasons—including among scientists. (5/7)
thehastingscenter.org/scientists-dis…
thehastingscenter.org/scientists-dis…
WHO is about to release their governance recommendations for gene editing. Elite scientific organizations are pushing hard to maintain self-regulation and fend off additional legislation or restrictions. (6/7)
Is this what self-regulation looks like? What steps are universities, publishers, professional organizations prepared to take to discourage attempts to profit from heritable genome editing? (7/7)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
