Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2018

02.07.2018 | Critical Perspectives

Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement

verfasst von: Marsha Greene, Zubin Master

Erschienen in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the key ethical questions of performing gene editing research on military service members. The recent technological advance in gene editing capabilities provided by CRISPR/Cas9 and their path towards first-in-human trials has reinvigorated the debate on human enhancement for non-medical purposes. Human performance optimization has long been a priority of military research in order to close the gap between the advancement of warfare and the limitations of human actors. In spite of this focus on temporary performance improvement, biomedical enhancement is an extension of these endeavours and the ethical issues of such research should be considered. In this paper, we explore possible applications of CRISPR to military human gene editing research and how it could be specifically applied towards protection of service members against biological or chemical weapons. We analyse three normative areas including risk–benefit analysis, informed consent, and inequality of access as it relates to CRISPR applications for military research to help inform and provide considerations for military institutional review boards and policymakers.
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Abelson, J., P-G. Forrest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F-P. Gauvin. 2003. Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57(2): 239–251.CrossRef Abelson, J., P-G. Forrest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F-P. Gauvin. 2003. Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57(2): 239–251.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Amoroso, P.J., and L. Wenger. 2003. The human volunteer in military biomedical research, Vol 2. In Military medical ethics, edited by T. Beam and L.R. Sparacino. Office of The Surgeon General. Washington, DC: TMM Publications. Amoroso, P.J., and L. Wenger. 2003. The human volunteer in military biomedical research, Vol 2. In Military medical ethics, edited by T. Beam and L.R. Sparacino. Office of The Surgeon General. Washington, DC: TMM Publications.
Zurück zum Zitat Annas, C.L., and G.J. Annas. 2009. Enhancing the fighting force: Medical research on American soldiers. Journal of Contemporary Health, Law and Policy 25(2): 283–308. Annas, C.L., and G.J. Annas. 2009. Enhancing the fighting force: Medical research on American soldiers. Journal of Contemporary Health, Law and Policy 25(2): 283–308.
Zurück zum Zitat Arévalo, M.T., A. Navarro, C.D. Arico, et al. 2014. Targeted silencing of anthrax toxin receptors protects against anthrax toxins. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 289(22): 15730–15738.CrossRef Arévalo, M.T., A. Navarro, C.D. Arico, et al. 2014. Targeted silencing of anthrax toxin receptors protects against anthrax toxins. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 289(22): 15730–15738.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ashcroft, R.E. 2008. Regulating biomedical enhancements in the military. American Journal of Bioethics 8(2): 47–49.CrossRef Ashcroft, R.E. 2008. Regulating biomedical enhancements in the military. American Journal of Bioethics 8(2): 47–49.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Boyce, R.M. 2009. Waiver of consent: The use of pyridostigmine bromide during the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Military Ethics 8(1): 1–18.CrossRef Boyce, R.M. 2009. Waiver of consent: The use of pyridostigmine bromide during the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Military Ethics 8(1): 1–18.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brown, M. 2009. Military chemical warfare agent human subjects testing: Part 1—History of six-decades of military experiments with chemical warfare agents. Military Medicine 174(10): 1041–1048.CrossRef Brown, M. 2009. Military chemical warfare agent human subjects testing: Part 1—History of six-decades of military experiments with chemical warfare agents. Military Medicine 174(10): 1041–1048.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wikler. 2000. From chance to choice. Genetics and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wikler. 2000. From chance to choice. Genetics and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chan, S., and J. Harris. 2007. In support of human enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1(1): Article 10. Chan, S., and J. Harris. 2007. In support of human enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1(1): Article 10.
Zurück zum Zitat Cornelis, M.C., N.R. Nugent, A.B. Amstadter, and K.C. Koenen. 2010. Genetics of post-traumatic stress disorder: Review and recommendations for genome-wide association studies. Current Psychiatry Reports 12(4): 313–326.CrossRef Cornelis, M.C., N.R. Nugent, A.B. Amstadter, and K.C. Koenen. 2010. Genetics of post-traumatic stress disorder: Review and recommendations for genome-wide association studies. Current Psychiatry Reports 12(4): 313–326.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cyranoski, D. 2016. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person. Nature 539(7630): 479.CrossRef Cyranoski, D. 2016. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person. Nature 539(7630): 479.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3216.02. 2002—Protection of human subjects and adherence to ethical standards in DoD-supported research. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3216.02. 2002—Protection of human subjects and adherence to ethical standards in DoD-supported research.
Zurück zum Zitat Dresser, R. 2009. First-in-Human trial participants: Not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37(1): 38–50.CrossRef Dresser, R. 2009. First-in-Human trial participants: Not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37(1): 38–50.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gao, C. 2018. The future of CRISPR technologies in agriculture. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 19(5): 275.CrossRef Gao, C. 2018. The future of CRISPR technologies in agriculture. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 19(5): 275.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gade, R. 2015. The U.S. Judge Advocate in contemporary military operations. In U.S. military operations: Law, policy, and practice, edited by G.S. Corn, R.E. VanLandingham, and S.R. Reeves. New York: Oxford University Press. Gade, R. 2015. The U.S. Judge Advocate in contemporary military operations. In U.S. military operations: Law, policy, and practice, edited by G.S. Corn, R.E. VanLandingham, and S.R. Reeves. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Gaskell, G., I. Bard, A. Allansdottir et al. 2017. Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology 35(11): 1021–1023.CrossRef Gaskell, G., I. Bard, A. Allansdottir et al. 2017. Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology 35(11): 1021–1023.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gracheva, E.O., N.T. Ingolia, Y.M. Kelly et al. 2010. Molecular basis of infrared detection by snakes. Nature 464(7291): 1006–1011.CrossRef Gracheva, E.O., N.T. Ingolia, Y.M. Kelly et al. 2010. Molecular basis of infrared detection by snakes. Nature 464(7291): 1006–1011.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hammond, A., R. Galizi, K. Kyrou, et al. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology 34(1): 78–83.CrossRef Hammond, A., R. Galizi, K. Kyrou, et al. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology 34(1): 78–83.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoehn, A.R., R.H. Solomon, S. Efron, et al. 2017. Strategic choices for a turbulent world: In pursuit of secuirty and opportunity. Santa Monica:Rand Corportation.CrossRef Hoehn, A.R., R.H. Solomon, S. Efron, et al. 2017. Strategic choices for a turbulent world: In pursuit of secuirty and opportunity. Santa Monica:Rand Corportation.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ishii, T. 2017. Germ line genome editing in clinics: The approaches, objectives and global society. Briefings in Functional Genomics 16(1): 45–56.CrossRef Ishii, T. 2017. Germ line genome editing in clinics: The approaches, objectives and global society. Briefings in Functional Genomics 16(1): 45–56.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jonas, W.B., F.G. O’Connor, P. Deuster, J. Peck, C. Shake, and S.S. Frost. 2010. Why total force fitness? Military Medicine 175(8): 6–13.CrossRef Jonas, W.B., F.G. O’Connor, P. Deuster, J. Peck, C. Shake, and S.S. Frost. 2010. Why total force fitness? Military Medicine 175(8): 6–13.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Katz, R.D. 2000. Friendly fire: The mandatory military anthrax vaccination program. Duke Law Journal 50: 1835–1865.CrossRef Katz, R.D. 2000. Friendly fire: The mandatory military anthrax vaccination program. Duke Law Journal 50: 1835–1865.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kiuru, M., and R.G. Crystal. 2008. Progress and prospects: Gene therapy for performance and appearance enhancement. Gene Therapy 15(5): 329–337.CrossRef Kiuru, M., and R.G. Crystal. 2008. Progress and prospects: Gene therapy for performance and appearance enhancement. Gene Therapy 15(5): 329–337.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Land, B.C. 2010. Current Department of Defense guidance for total force fitness. Military Medicine 175(8): 3–5.CrossRef Land, B.C. 2010. Current Department of Defense guidance for total force fitness. Military Medicine 175(8): 3–5.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ma, H., N. Marti-Gutierrez, S. Park, et. al. 2017. Correcting a Pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature 548: 413–419.CrossRef Ma, H., N. Marti-Gutierrez, S. Park, et. al. 2017. Correcting a Pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature 548: 413–419.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Martchenko, M., S.I. Candille, H. Tang, and S.N. Cohen. 2012. Human genetic variation altering anthrax toxin sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(8): 2972–2977.CrossRef Martchenko, M., S.I. Candille, H. Tang, and S.N. Cohen. 2012. Human genetic variation altering anthrax toxin sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(8): 2972–2977.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat McCaughey, T., P.G. Sanfilippo, G.E. Gooden, et al. 2016. A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell 18(5): 569–572.CrossRef McCaughey, T., P.G. Sanfilippo, G.E. Gooden, et al. 2016. A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell 18(5): 569–572.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2017. Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington: National Academies Press. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2017. Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington: National Academies Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Nature Methods. 2018. CRISPR off-targets: A reassessment. Nature Methods 15(4): 229–230.CrossRef Nature Methods. 2018. CRISPR off-targets: A reassessment. Nature Methods 15(4): 229–230.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Nunez de la Fuente, C., and T.K. Lu. 2017. CRISPR-Cas9 technology; Applications in genomic engineering, development of sequence-specific antimicrobials and furture prospects. Integrative Biology 9(2): 109–122.CrossRef Nunez de la Fuente, C., and T.K. Lu. 2017. CRISPR-Cas9 technology; Applications in genomic engineering, development of sequence-specific antimicrobials and furture prospects. Integrative Biology 9(2): 109–122.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Qi, L.S., M.H. Larson, L.A. Gilbert, et al. 2013. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152(5): 1173–1183.CrossRef Qi, L.S., M.H. Larson, L.A. Gilbert, et al. 2013. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152(5): 1173–1183.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rabino, I. 2003. Gene therapy: Ethical issues. Theor Med Bioethics 24(1): 31–58.CrossRef Rabino, I. 2003. Gene therapy: Ethical issues. Theor Med Bioethics 24(1): 31–58.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rose, D., J. Russo, and T. Wykes. 2013.Taking part in a pharmacogenetic clinical trial: Assessment of trial participants understanding of information disclosed during the informed consent process. BMC Medical Ethics 14: 34.CrossRef Rose, D., J. Russo, and T. Wykes. 2013.Taking part in a pharmacogenetic clinical trial: Assessment of trial participants understanding of information disclosed during the informed consent process. BMC Medical Ethics 14: 34.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5/6): 413–426.CrossRef Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5/6): 413–426.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. RBMOnline 10(Supp 1): 36–39. ———. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. RBMOnline 10(Supp 1): 36–39.
Zurück zum Zitat Savulescu J., and G. Kahane. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 274–290.CrossRef Savulescu J., and G. Kahane. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 274–290.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schaefer, K.A., W. Wu, D.F. Colgan, et al. 2017. Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature Methods 14(6): 547–548.CrossRef Schaefer, K.A., W. Wu, D.F. Colgan, et al. 2017. Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature Methods 14(6): 547–548.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Scheufele, D.A., M.A. Xenos, E.L. Howell et al. 2017. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357(6351): 553–554.CrossRef Scheufele, D.A., M.A. Xenos, E.L. Howell et al. 2017. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science 357(6351): 553–554.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shakespeare, T. 1995. Back to the future? New genetics and disabled people. Critical Social Policy 44(5): 22–35.CrossRef Shakespeare, T. 1995. Back to the future? New genetics and disabled people. Critical Social Policy 44(5): 22–35.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 1998. Choices and rights? Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability and Society 13(5): 665–681. ———. 1998. Choices and rights? Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability and Society 13(5): 665–681.
Zurück zum Zitat Simón, C. 2013. Personal assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 100(4): 922–923.CrossRef Simón, C. 2013. Personal assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 100(4): 922–923.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Smith, E., and Z. Master. 2014. Ethical practice of research involving humans. Reference module in biomedical research, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier. 1–11. Smith, E., and Z. Master. 2014. Ethical practice of research involving humans. Reference module in biomedical research, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier. 1–11.
Zurück zum Zitat Zou, Q., X. Wang, Y. Liu, et al. 2015. Generation of gene-target dogs using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 7(6): 580–583.CrossRef Zou, Q., X. Wang, Y. Liu, et al. 2015. Generation of gene-target dogs using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 7(6): 580–583.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement
verfasst von
Marsha Greene
Zubin Master
Publikationsdatum
02.07.2018
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Erschienen in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Elektronische ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9865-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Symposium: Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy

One For All, All For One? Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy