РИСКИ ГЕНЕТИЧЕСКОГО РЕДАКТИРОВАНИЯ ГЕНОМА ЧЕЛОВЕКА С УЧЕТОМ РЕКОМЕНДАЦИЙ ВСЕМИРНОЙ ОРГАНИЗАЦИИ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ

Anastasia Aleksandrovna PESTRIKOVA; Elena Nikolaevna KHOLOPOVA

doi:10.33184/pravgos-2022.4.7

Authors

Anastasia Aleksandrovna PESTRIKOVA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9318-2397
Elena Nikolaevna KHOLOPOVA Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9077-1348

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2022.4.7

Keywords:

genetic risks, somatic editing, human germline editing, genome, genetic editing, World Health Organization

Abstract

The relevance of the study is determined by the need to take into account the risks of human genome editing (somatic and germ-line) taking into account the international recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), the possibilities of introducing such editing into clinical practice. Potential benefits of human genome editing include new strategies for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of genetic disorders, new treatments for infertility,
innovative ways to increase disease resistance, they contribute to the development of vaccines and the expansion of knowledge about the human body as a whole. However, human genome editing requires examining risks and benefits. Purpose: to analyze the possible risks of human genome editing, taking into account the international recommendations of WHO to form the conditions for the admissibility of genetic eaiting in clinical practice. Methods: general scientific (logical, systemic, structural-functional, comparative, analogy and modeling, observation, analysis of international regulations: conventions, doctrines, treaties, resolutions, declarations, analysis of WHO activities based on information posted on websites), specific scientific (institutional, functional assessment, differentiation), special legal (formal legal, comparative legal interpretation).Results: human genome editing (somatic and germline) has significant potential for humanity and health, medicine and science systems. In the Russian Federation, there is a need to develop legislation to enable the application of genetic editing, taking into account risks and benefits; to define the concept and difference of somatic editing and germ-line editing; to fix the
grounds of restrictions of application of genetic editing in «serious disease or disorder of the organism» and «improvement of functions of the organism»; to
define the concept and legal status of embryo and other substances of embryonic origin, as well as possibilities of using embryos for scientific and medical purposes.

Author Biographies

Anastasia Aleksandrovna PESTRIKOVA

Candidate of Sciences (Law)

Elena Nikolaevna KHOLOPOVA, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

Doctor of Law, Candidate of Sciences (Psychology), Professor, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Management and Territorial Development

References

Archer N.M. Resistance to plasmodium falciparum in sickle cell trait erythrocytes is driven by oxygendependent growth inhibition / N.M. Archer, N. Petersen, M.A. Clark, C.O. Buckee, L.M. Childs, M.T. Duraisingh // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - 2018. - № 115. - P. 7350-7355.

Normile D. Shock greets claim of crispr-edited babies / D. Normile / / Science. - 2018. - № 362. - P. 978-979.

Biesecker L.G. A genomic view of mosaicism and human disease / L.G. Biesecker, N.B. Spinner // Nature Reviews Genetics. - 2013. - № 14. - P. 307-320.

Baylis F. Human germline and heritable genome editing: the global policy landscape / F. Baylis, M. Darnovsky, K. Hasson, T.M. Krahn // CRISPR Journal. - 2020. - № 3. - P. 365-377.

Macintosh K.L. Heritable genome editing and the downsides of a global moratorium / K.L. Macintosh // CRISPR Journal. - 2019. - № 2. - P. 272-279.

Lander E.S. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing / E.S. Lander, F. Baylis, F. Zhang, E. Charpentier, P. Berg, C. Bourgain et al. / / Nature. - 2019. - № 567. - P. 165-168.

Joy M.T. Ccr5 is a therapeutic target for recovery after stroke and traumatic brain injury / M.T. Joy, E.B. Assayag, D. Shabashov-Stone, S. Liraz-Zaltsman, J. Mazzitelli, M. Arenas, et al. // Cell. - 2019. - № 176. - P. 1143-1157.

Konig H. Germline-editing moratorium - why we should resist it / H. Konig // Nature. - 2019. - Vol. 568, iss. 7753. - P. 458.

Cyranoski D. What crispr-baby prison sentences mean for research / D. Cyranoski // Nature. - 2020. - № 577. - P. 154-155.

Fletcher J.C. Germ-line gene therapy: a new stage of debate / J.C. Fletcher, W.F. Anderson / / Law, Medicine & Health Care. - 1992. - № 20. - P. 26-39.

Park S., Beal P.A. Off-target editing by crispr-guided dna base editors / S. Park, P.A. Beal // Biochemistry. - 2019. - № 58. - Р. 3727-3734.