Regarding the article: 'Human germline genetic modification: Scientific and bioethical perspectives'

摘要

Although the insightful review article on human germline genetic modification (HGGM) by Professor John Harris and colleagues published in this journal (1) is a fortunate asset for researchers in developing countries, I find some of their claims too enthusiastic. Hence, I offer the following remarks:1. The prediction that "in the future, HGGM could result in the birth of persons who are altogether better: for example, such genetically modified persons might live longer and have improved cognitive and physical abilities" is inconsistent with the awesome complexity of genetic interactions and overlooks the key role of epigenetics in modulating gene expression (2). By comparison, an authoritative editorial on human genome sequencing efforts (3) has stressed the "...need to solve a long-standing mismatch: the rapidly increasing ease of gathering genomic data versus the continuing difficulty of establishing what the genetic elements actually do...[before] astounding applications to human health" can be achieved (until now, "not so much"). Likewise, the repeated assertion that the human genome is not perfect (1) amounts to saying that genomes of all organisms or species, and ultimately the whole nature, are also imperfect. I consider that the practical impossibility of defining perfection, not only reaching it, makes any attempt to strive for a perfect human being in a brave new world, futile.