Close­ly-watched in­ter­na­tion­al CRISPR ethics pan­el leaves door ajar for germline edit­ing — one day

In 2017, some of the world’s top sci­en­tists and ethi­cists emerged from over a year of de­lib­er­a­tions with a re­port meant to fi­nal­ly lay down guid­ing prin­ci­ples for how CRISPR, the awe­some-pow­er-awe­some-re­spon­si­bil­i­ty genome edit­ing tool, should be safe­ly and moral­ly used.

Then, just months lat­er, a sci­en­tist named He Jiankui an­nounced he had used the tool to ed­it em­bryos and cre­ate so-called “CRISPR ba­bies.” That was baf­fling to the ex­perts who uni­ver­sal­ly preached cau­tion, but so was his next claim: That he had done so while fol­low­ing the — in hind­sight, vague — prin­ci­ples set out in the re­port.

So the sci­en­tists went back to the draw­ing board. Less than two years af­ter the ini­tial project, the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences launched a sec­ond pan­el to pro­duce a re­port less open to in­ter­pre­ta­tion.

Yes­ter­day, they re­leased the re­sults. Un­like the pre­vi­ous re­port, the new one starts with a list of de­clar­a­tive and un­am­bigous de­c­la­ra­tions: With­out clos­ing the door on edit­ing em­bryos, the pan­el con­clud­ed that the sci­en­tif­ic tools were not yet avail­able to do so safe­ly, and even when they were avail­able, they could on­ly be eth­i­cal­ly ap­plied in a nar­row set of cir­cum­stances. They al­so called for the cre­ation of in­ter­na­tion­al bod­ies that could coun­sel sci­en­tists and gov­ern­ments and track re­ports of sci­en­tists, such as He Jiankui, car­ry­ing out po­ten­tial­ly du­bi­ous projects.

One of the key points of con­tention around the 2017 re­port was the ques­tion of where germline edit­ing may one day be al­low­able. These types of ed­its are par­tic­u­lar­ly con­cern­ing be­cause, un­like edit­ing cells in an adult, the changes to the genome be­come her­i­ta­ble, al­ter­ing hu­man evo­lu­tion. There are al­so con­cerns around con­sent — the per­son be­ing edit­ed can’t give it. Still, the 2017 pan­el ruled that such an ed­it might be used in cas­es of “se­ri­ous, un­met med­ical need.” He in­ter­pret­ed that to cov­er a gene that af­fect­ed HIV trans­mis­sion. Many oth­er schol­ars did not.

The new guide­lines are far more tai­lored. Ini­tial us­es, they write, should be “lim­it­ed to se­ri­ous mono­genic dis­eases,” ones that “cause se­vere mor­bid­i­ty or death.” That could in­clude mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy, be­ta-tha­lassemia, cys­tic fi­bro­sis, and Tay-Sachs dis­ease, among oth­ers, they write. No­tably, they ex­clude dis­eases caused by mul­ti­ple genes, even when a par­tic­u­lar gene vari­ant such as APOE4 in Alzheimer’s puts some­one at a greater risk of de­vel­op­ing that dis­ease. APOE4, they note, on­ly cor­re­lates with a 5% greater risk of Alzheimer’s be­tween ages 60 and 69.

Richard Lifton

“Edit­ing a gene vari­ant as­so­ci­at­ed with a com­plex dis­ease is like­ly to have on­ly a mi­nor ef­fect on the risk of de­vel­op­ing that dis­ease,” the re­port’s au­thors, chaired by Ox­ford’s Kay Davies and Rock­e­feller Uni­ver­si­ty’s Richard Lifton, write, “while al­so po­ten­tial­ly in­tro­duc­ing un­known ef­fects be­cause of oth­er bi­o­log­i­cal roles the gene may play and oth­er ge­net­ic net­works in which it may in­ter­act.”

Even in cas­es of se­vere mono­genic dis­eases, though, CRISPR use would be se­vere­ly cur­tailed. With IVF and neo-na­tal screen, doc­tors can al­ready screen em­bryos for Tay-Sachs and oth­er con­di­tions and se­lect the best ones. So such ed­its would on­ly be per­mis­si­ble in cas­es where there are no al­ter­na­tives, such as when every one of a prospec­tive par­ent’s em­bryos car­ry the ge­net­ic vari­ant. The ed­it would al­so have to cor­rect a vari­ant in­to the com­mon form of the gene, elim­i­nat­ing the form of edit­ing He used, where he tried to crip­ple the CCR5 gene HIV us­es to en­ter cells.

And edit­ing for those dis­or­ders would on­ly be per­mis­si­ble once sci­en­tif­ic tech­niques catch up to these sci­en­tif­ic ideas, the au­thors wrote, which they haven’t. Sci­ence writ­ers have com­pared us­ing CRISPR to edit­ing the hu­man genome like a Word doc­u­ment, but it might be more apt to com­pare it to edit­ing a Word doc­u­ment on cof­fee-stained key­board. It works of­ten, but in­vari­ably there are un­want­ed changes both at the site of the ed­it and oth­er sites on the genome.

The re­port warns strong­ly against germline edit­ing be­fore re­searchers de­vel­op meth­ods to not on­ly sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly ed­it em­bryos with­out those un­in­tend­ed changes, but to ad­e­quate­ly screen the em­bryos to as­sure they’ve been edit­ed safe­ly.

Kay Davies

“No at­tempt to es­tab­lish a preg­nan­cy with a hu­man em­bryo that has un­der­gone genome edit­ing should pro­ceed un­less and un­til it has been clear­ly es­tab­lished that it is pos­si­ble to ef­fi­cient­ly and re­li­ably make pre­cise ge­nom­ic changes with­out un­de­sired changes in hu­man em­bryos,” they write in rec­om­men­da­tion #1. “These cri­te­ria have not yet been met and fur­ther re­search and re­view would be nec­es­sary to meet them.”

While cau­tion­ing that de­ci­sions on germline edit­ing are left to in­di­vid­ual coun­tries, the re­port calls for in­ter­na­tion­al bod­ies that could set rec­om­men­da­tions and man­age re­ports of un­eth­i­cal be­hav­ior. That would in­clude an In­ter­na­tion­al Sci­en­tif­ic Ad­vi­so­ry Pan­el with “di­verse, mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary mem­ber­ship” and “in­de­pen­dent ex­perts who can as­sess sci­en­tif­ic ev­i­dence of safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy of both genome edit­ing and as­so­ci­at­ed as­sist­ed re­pro­duc­tive tech­nolo­gies.” That pan­el would give in­sight be­fore any new form of germline edit­ing was used in hu­mans.

The un­spec­i­fied body for re­port­ing un­eth­i­cal be­hav­ior would pass those con­cerns to na­tion­al au­thor­i­ties and pub­licly dis­close them. No­tably, mul­ti­ple sci­en­tists knew of He’s work be­fore the an­nounce­ment but said they lacked au­thor­i­ties to re­port to.

Since He’s an­nounce­ment – which ul­ti­mate­ly land­ed him a 3-year prison sen­tence in Chi­na — there have been no oth­er known cas­es of a re­searcher edit­ing an em­bryo be­fore preg­nan­cy. A Russ­ian sci­en­tist, though, has pur­sued a project to cor­rect blind­ness in em­bryos, rais­ing sim­i­lar alarm among out­side ex­perts. He told Sci­ence’s Jon Co­hen he op­posed the new rec­om­men­da­tions as “far too nar­row.”

Tar­get­ing a Po­ten­tial Vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of Cer­tain Can­cers with DNA Dam­age Re­sponse

Every individual’s DNA is unique, and because of this, every patient responds differently to disease and treatment. It is astonishing how four tiny building blocks of our DNA – A, T, C, G – dictate our health, disease, and how we age.

The tricky thing about DNA is that it is constantly exposed to damage by sources such as ultraviolet light, certain chemicals, toxins, and even natural biochemical processes inside our cells.¹ If ignored, DNA damage will accumulate in replicating cells, giving rise to mutations that can lead to premature aging, cancer, and other diseases.

Fol­low biotechs go­ing pub­lic with the End­points News IPO Track­er

The Endpoints News team is continuing to track IPO filings for 2021, and we’ve designed a new tracker page for the effort.

Check it out here: Biopharma IPOs 2021 from Endpoints News

You’ll be able to find all the biotechs that have filed and priced so far this year, sortable by quarter and listed by newest first. As of the time of publishing on Feb. 25, there have already been 16 biotechs debuting on Nasdaq so far this year, with an additional four having filed their S-1 paperwork.

Tom Barnes (Orna)

The mR­NA era is here. MPM be­lieves the fu­ture be­longs to oR­NA — and Big Phar­ma wants a seat at the ta­ble

If the ultra-fast clinical development of Covid-19 vaccines opened the world’s eyes to the promises of messenger RNA, the subsequent delays in supply offered a crash course on the ultra-complex process of producing them. Even before the formulation and fill-finish steps, mRNA is the precious end product from an arduous journey involving enzyme-aided transcription, modification and purification.

For Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Gilead’s Kite and Astellas, it’s time to rethink the way therapeutic RNA is engineered.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Steve Cutler, Icon CEO (Icon)

In the biggest CRO takeover in years, Icon doles out $12B for PRA Health Sci­ences to fo­cus on de­cen­tral­ized clin­i­cal work

Contract research M&A had a healthy run in recent years before recently petering out. But with the market ripe for a big buyout and the Covid-19 pandemic emphasizing the importance of decentralized trials, Wednesday saw a tectonic shift in the CRO world.

Icon, the Dublin-based CRO, will acquire PRA Health Sciences for $12 billion in a move that will shake up the highest rungs of a fragmented market. The merger would combine the 5th- and 6th-largest CROs by 2020 revenue, according to Icon, and the merger will set the newco up to be the second-largest global CRO behind only IQVIA.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

S&P ex­pects steady ero­sion in Big Phar­ma's cred­it pro­file in 2021 as new M&A deals roll in — but don't un­der­es­ti­mate their un­der­ly­ing strength

S&P Global has taken a look at the dominant forces shaping the pharma market and come to the conclusion that there will be more downgrades than upgrades in 2021 — the 8th straight year of steady decline.

But it’s not all bad news. Some things are looking up, and there’s still plenty of money to be made in an industry that enjoys a 30% to 40% profit margin, once you factor in steep R&D expenses.

Tal Zaks, Moderna CMO (AP Photo/Rodrique Ngowi, via still image from video)

CMO Tal Zaks bids Mod­er­na a sur­prise adieu as biotech projects $18.4B in rev­enue, plots post-Covid ex­pan­sion

How do you exit a company after six years in style? Developing one of the most lucrative and life-saving products in pharma history is probably not the worst way to go.

Tal Zaks, Moderna’s CMO since 2015, will leave the mRNA biotech in September, the biotech disclosed in their annual report this morning. The company has already retained the recruitment firm Russell Reynolds to find a replacement.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ken Frazier, Merck CEO (Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Mer­ck takes a swing at the IL-2 puz­zle­box with a $1.85B play for buzzy Pan­dion and its au­toim­mune hope­fuls

When Roger Perlmutter bid farewell to Merck late last year, the drugmaker perhaps best known now for sales giant Keytruda signaled its intent to take a swing at early-stage novelty with the appointment of discovery head Dean Li. Now, Merck is signing a decent-sized check to bring an IL-2 moonshot into the fold.

Merck will shell out roughly $1.85 billion for Pandion Pharmaceuticals, a biotech hoping to gin up regulatory T cells (Tregs) to treat a range of autoimmune disorders, the drugmaker said Thursday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Glax­o­SmithK­line re­thinks strat­e­gy for Covid-19 an­ti­body — not the Vir ones — af­ter tri­al flop. Is there hope in high-risk pa­tients?

In the search for a better Covid-19 therapeutic, GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have partnered up on two antibodies they hope have a chance. GSK is also testing its own in-house antibody, and early results may have shut the door on its widespread use.

A combination of GSK’s monoclonal antibody otilimab plus standard of care couldn’t best standard of care alone in preventing death and respiratory failure in hospitalized Covid-19 patients after 28 days, according to data from the Phase IIa OSCAR study unveiled Thursday.

Photo: Shutterstock

Bio­phar­ma's suc­cess rate in bring­ing drugs to mar­ket has long been abysmal. Can new tools help rewrite that trou­bled past?

In 2011, a team of researchers at British drugmaker AstraZeneca had a problem they were looking to solve.

For years, drug discovery and development were a wasteland for innovation. Novel drugs largely fell into one of two categories — monoclonal antibodies and small molecules — and new therapeutic modalities were hard to come by. After a rush of promising approvals in the late 1990s — including then-Biogen’s CD20 targeting antibody breakthrough Rituxan — the field stagnated and attrition rates stayed sky-high. What exactly is the industry doing wrong? AstraZeneca asked itself.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.