Renowned scientists analyze the possibilities and risks of genetic research

The Bioethics Observatory brought together experts in genetic editing at a conference with a hundred national and international attendees.

On July 4, the Congress “Genetic research: possibilities and risks. An approach from Bioethics” took place. It was organized by the Bioethics Observatory of the Catholic University of Valencia. In it, experts from various fields explored the ethical implications of current scientific advances in this field.

José Manuel Pagán, rector of the Catholic University of Valencia, opened the event and recalled the important work carried out by the Bioethics Observatory in the area of ​​science dissemination. He also thanked the speakers for shedding light on the field of gene editing.

Pagán highlighted the importance of addressing these issues from a university perspective and encouraged attendees to continue their education in topics such as this.

Julio Tudela, director of the Bioethics Observatory, noted that the experts chosen to develop the different presentations were excellent, not only technically and scientifically, but also humanly, each one in their discipline.

Tudela stated that scientists must be credible, which is a complicated task: “in science, scientific rigor is essential, always seeking the truth in the first place. ” Bioethics cannot be done without this premise, without delving into what is behind what we analyze.”

Epigenetics and genome editing

The lectures were opened by two distinguished scientists: Luis Franco, member of the Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain and Nicolás Jouve, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at the University of Alcala.

Lucía Gómez Tatay, biotechnologist and lecturer of cell biology, biochemistry and bioethics at the Catholic University of Valencia (UCV), moderated the round table.

In his presentation “Ethics and epigenetics”, Franco analyzed how epigenetic factors influence health, and focused on the ethical implications of the transmission of epigenetic factors to offspring, with the consequent responsibility of parents.

Franco discussed in his lecture “Ethics and epigenetics” how epigenetic factors influence health. In addition, he focused on the ethical implications of the transmission of epigenetic factors to offspring, with the consequent responsibility of parents. Finally, he explained the epigenetic damage that can be caused by the environment, emphasizing the responsibility of everyone in caring for our planet, with reference to Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato si’.

Jouve, in his lecture “Genomic editing. Therapeutic advances and bioethical uncertainties” analyzed the different therapeutic advances existing in genome editing and presented the bioethical uncertainties that emerge in this field.

He placed special emphasis on two aspects: firstly, on the consequences of premature application under conditions of technological imprecision and insecurity, especially because of the dangers of affecting the germ line. Secondly, with regard to the interest in applying gene editing for “improvement” purposes unrelated to health, such as those proposed from the transhumanist perspective.

He also remarked that transhumanist ideas collide with an “unquestionable” reality: “it is not well known what genetic basis the behavioral factors of human beings have. Multigene therapies are not yet possible and, for example, multiple genes are involved in a person’s intelligence.”

Bioengineering and gene therapy

The second round table was moderated by José Miguel Hernández-Andreu, university professor and researcher in biochemistry and molecular biology at the UCV.

In this session, attendees were able to learn first-hand about the technical aspects surrounding the generation and use of organoids for applications in biomedical research, personalized medicine and transplantation.

The topic of the presentation by Núria Montserrat, ICREA Research Professor and Senior Group Leader at the Institute of Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC) was “Deciphering the potential of human mini-organs in the laboratory through ethics and bioengineering.”

Montserrat stated that organoids are currently expected to revolutionize biomedical research. “The generation and use of these models raises ethical debates and analysis of specific topics such as informed consent models, future scenarios for their possible commercialization and applications in personalized medicine and transplants,” said the researcher.

Likewise, she continued by stating that “from the beginning, the scientific community has shown interest in deepening ethical research around organoids and their applications and thus guaranteeing the responsible development and clinical implementation of this technology in this field.”

Juan Roberto Rodríguez-Madoz, researcher of the Adoptive Cellular Therapy Research Group of the Center for Applied Medical Research of the University of Navarra, gave a presentation entitled “Advances in the therapeutic application of CRISPR-based gene editing systems”.

Rodríguez-Madoz, recalled that these technologies have become a promising tool for the development of innovative therapies to advance the treatment of diseases with unmet medical needs, such as AIDS.

 “CRISPR technology not only allows the generation of more effective therapeutic products (i.e. improved CAR-T therapies), but also direct therapeutic use in order to reverse gene mutations that cause diseases with great precision and efficiency,” the researcher recalled.

In Rodríguez-Madoz’s opinion, human beings have the “duty” to develop drugs to cure diseases, but, at the same time, “they do not have the power to modify the genome as they please”. Firstly, because this technology is “scientifically young” and more “experience” with it is still needed “to see what happens in the long term with gene editing.”

Ethical limits in genetic manipulation

The afternoon round table was moderated by María José Salar, professor of the Faculty of Legal, Economic and Social Sciences of the UCV. The presentations were given by Vicente Bellver, Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Valencia and President of the Bioethics Committee of the Valencian Community, Federico de Montalvo, Vice-Rector of Institutional Relations at the Universidad Pontificia Comillas and Iñigo de Miguel, member of the Research Group of the Chair in Law and the Human Genome at the University of the Basque Country.

Bellver began by explaining that in the editing of the heritable genome in embryos the conditions of safety and effectiveness are not met and that the rights of future generations are at stake. “Its use in serious monogenic diseases, if the difficulties regarding the undesirable effects or the consequences of its application were overcome, would open its use to many other ethically questionable applications,” the expert said.

On the other hand, Federico de Montalvo developed the principles and rules of gene editing, highlighting that the advance of biotechnology and gene editing also poses problems from the perspective of its regulation. And he encouraged the strengthening of bioethics committees, stating that these are good times for this.

He also raised the dilemma of uncertainty, which in his opinion is resolved with more uncertainty, regulating on the basis of principles instead of rules, given that these are cases that are difficult to foresee. Furthermore, the expert affirmed that the law will be saved by bioethics, and that more than ever new judges, properly trained to deal with the new scenario, are needed. The legislator will be one of minimums.

For Iñigo de Miguel, gene editing is clearly a disruptive technology, capable of substantially changing the way in which we conceive ourselves as human beings and the way in which we carry out one of our most important activities, reproduction.

“Its potential to substantially improve the health of our offspring when used on the germline is undeniable. However, many reasons have been given for opposing it. Some of those commonly cited include: the inherent risk of the technique, the temptation to ‘play god,’ the undermining of human dignity, the possibility of its use for enhancement purposes, or its ability to create a more unjust world than we know right now.”

In his opinion, the last factor is truly significant, but also negative enough that we are forced to debate very seriously the admissibility of germline editing.