Max Planck Society backs CRISPR crops, rejects human germline editing

gene editing plants

As an organization of basic research, the Max Planck Society bears a special responsibility for the use of new scientific techniques for the benefit of humans and the environment. The Ethics Council of the Max Planck Society has therefore prepared a discussion paper [in German] on so-called genome editing, which highlights the potentials and risks of this method.

In the paper, the Ethics Council concludes that the various uses of the technology in plant breeding, medicine or pest control bring their own ethical issues. These must be answered individually. For example, the Max Planck Society is aware of the implications of inheritable artificial mutations, such as those caused by genome editing of germ line cells. For the time being, therefore, it will not conduct any research on the genetic modification of germline cells. Instead, [the society] wants to participate in the discussion based on the latest scientific findings and the development of international standards.

Detlef Weigel of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology explains in the chapter on Genome Editing of Plants that the technology can produce new plant varieties that are more resistant to herbicides …. The paper concludes that genome-edited crops should not be covered by the EU’s GMO [rules] if the changes due to genome editing are indistinguishable from natural mutations.

No change in the germline

According to the technology Stefan Mundlos and Hans Schöler, the technology also has great potential for medicine. For example, the correction of pathogenic mutations in blood cells could cure leukemia patients. In contrast to the genome editing of such ordinary body cells, the Max Planck Society rejects the alteration of germ line cells under the current conditions. Not only have various security concerns not been resolved – the health of patients would also need to be controlled over several decades to rule out side effects in future generations.

Related article:  Offspring of gene-edited, hornless dairy bull born healthy, study confirms

The Ethics Council doubts in its paper that a voluntary commitment by the scientific community to suspend germ line experiments for the time being would solve these problems. Not every scientist will feel bound to such a moratorium. In addition, violations would hardly be punished.

Concerns about Gene Drive

Similarly, the scientific and ethical questions about the use of the so-called gene-drive technology using genome-edited insects are not easy to answer. Although the technology can contribute to the control of diseases and pests, problems are the lack of dispersion control and the lack of opposition of the people living in the affected regions.

So far, there are no national or international laws that could protect against misuse of research results on genome editing. Silja Vöneky from the University of Freiburg therefore advocates a state supervisory authority or an international committee that can assess risky experiments on a broad basis.

[Editor’s note: This article was published in German and has been translated and lightly edited for clarity.]

Read full, original article: Max Planck Society rejects interference with the human germline

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
can you boost your immune system to prevent coronavirus spread x

Video: How to boost your immune system to guard against COVID and other illnesses

Scientists have recently developed ways to measure your immune age. Fortunately, it turns out your immune age can go down ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...
gmo corn field x

Do GMO Bt (insect-resistant) crops pose a threat to human health or the environment?

Bt is a bacterium found organically in the soil. It is extremely effective in repelling or killing target insects but ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend