The Precautionary Principle: A Public Policy Tool to Support the Application of Heritable Human Genome Editing?
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Precautionary Principle (‘PP’) is a legal, ethical and regulatory chameleon. It acts as a guide to decision-making, in conditions of scientific uncertainty. Therefore, a fundamental aim of it is to offer some certainty under conditions that are largely uncertain. The advent of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (‘CRISPR’) technology epitomises an emerging technology which does not lend itself to regulatory convenience. Its far-reaching scientific, ethical, social, legal and regulatory implications, renders the task of applying a rigid, uniform framework or decision-making mechanism impossible. Unsurprisingly, the current regulatory approach for Heritable Human Genome Editing (‘HHGE’) is highly prohibitive, manifested as a blanket moratorium. However, as the technology continues to mature, it is prudent to consider pathways for its eventual legal and regulatory permissibility.
Subsequently, this principle offers a means to formulate future public policy and regulation. The primary aim of this article is to advance an argument for the practical utility of this principle in supporting a therapeutic use of HHGE. Namely, to prevent Huntington’s Disease – a fatal monogenic genetic disease. As observed with somatic genome editing, it is feasible to presume the first therapeutic use of HHGE may target fatal monogenic genetic diseases (caused by a single mutation). Through the application of the framework provided by the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, this article argues this principle does not necessarily translate to a strict regulatory prohibition. In the context of emerging technologies, its application must be tempered to accommodate for research development, thereby enabling technological advancement.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Bourguigon D. The Precautionary Principle: Definitions, Applications and Governance. European Parliamentary Research Service; 2015:1-25.
3. Pandos OC. Navigating the Ethics of Genome Editing and Heritability. Medical Research Archives. 2024;12(5):1-13.
4. Greely HT. CRISPR’d babies: human germline genome editing in the “He Jiankui affair.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2019;6(1):111-183.
5. Pandos OC. Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia. Federal Law Review. 2024;52(1):75-102.
6. Pinto-Bazurco JF. The Precautionary Principle. International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2020:1-8.
7. Holdway A. Reducing Uncertainty: The Need to Clarify the Key Elements of the Precautionary Principle. Consilience. 2008;1:37-51.
8. Balls M. The Precautionary Principle Should be Used with Caution - and Should be Applied to Animal Experimentation and Genetic Manipulation, Not Merely to Protection of the Environment. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. 1999;27(1):1-5.
9. Stirling A. On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk. European Science and Technology Observatory; 1999:2-56.
10. Stirling A. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports. 2007;8(4):309-315.
11. Dinneen N. Precautionary discourse: Thinking through the distinction between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach in theory and practice. Politics and the Life Sciences. 2013;32(1):2-21.
12. Todt O, Luján JL. Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together? Risk Analysis. 2014;34(12):2163-2173.
13. Hartzell-Nichols L. From “the” Precautionary Principle to Precautionary Principles. Ethics, Policy & Environment. 2013;16(3):308-320.
14. Garnett K, Parsons DJ. Multi-Case Review of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in European Union Law and Case Law. Risk Analysis. 2017;37(3):502-516.
15. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Science and the Precautionary Principle. Science. 2000;288(5468):979-981.
16. Sunstein CR. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge University Press; 2005.
17. Science for Environment Policy. Future Brief: The Precautionary Principle: Decision-Making under Uncertainty. European Commission; 2017.
18. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Published online August 12, 1992.
19. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. The Precautionary Principle. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2005:7-54.
20. Hermerén G. The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2012;15:373-382.
21. Cleveland Clinic. Huntington’s Disease. Published online September 27, 2023. Accessed December 3, 2024. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/14369-huntingtons-disease#outlook-prognosis
22. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man. Huntington Disease. Published online February 12, 2022. Accessed December 3, 2024. https://www.omim.org/entry/143100?search=%22huntington%20disease%22&highlight=%22huntington%20disease%22#clinicalFeatures
23. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Huntington’s Disease. Published online 2024. Accessed December 3, 2024. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/huntingtons-disease
24. Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. The Use of New Genetic Technologies in Human Beings. Council of Europe; 2017:3-12.
25. Brokowski C. Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It? The CRISPR Journal. 2018;1(2):115-125.
26. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics and Governance.; 2017.
27. Ormond KE, Bombard Y, Bonham VL, et al. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Personalized Medicine. 2019;16(4):337-350.
28. Ishii T. Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society. Briefings in Functional Genomics. 2017;16(1):46-56.
29. European Academies Science Advisory Council. Genome Editing: Scientific Opportunities, Public Interests and Policy Options in the European Union.; 2017:1-34.
30. Comité Consultatif National D’éthique. Ethical Challenges of Gene Editing: Between Hope and Caution. Comité Consultatif National D’éthique; 2019:5-38.
31. Duan W, Urani E, Mattson MP. The Potential of Gene Editing for Huntington’s Disease. Trends in Neurosciences. 46(5):365-376.
32. World Health Organization. The Global Health Observatory. Published online 2024. Accessed December 4, 2024. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/life-expectancy-at-birth-(years)
33. Drabiak K. Untangling the Promises of Human Genome Editing. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2018;46:991-1009.
34. Inter-departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment. The Precautionary Principle: Policy and Application. Inter-departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment; 2002:1-18.
35. Starr C. The Precautionary Principle Versus Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis. 2003;23(1):1-3.
36. Manson NA. Formulating the Precautionary Principle. In: Arguing About Science. Routledge; 2013:607-616.
37. Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Juthe A. Five Charges Against the Precautionary Principle. In: Arguing About Science. Routledge; 2013:617-628.