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.”

The DCT-OS: A Tech­nol­o­gy-first Op­er­at­ing Sys­tem - En­abling Clin­i­cal Tri­als

As technology-enabled clinical research becomes the new normal, an integrated decentralized clinical trial operating system can ensure quality, deliver consistency and improve the patient experience.

The increasing availability of COVID-19 vaccines has many of us looking forward to a time when everyday things return to a state of normal. Schools and teachers are returning to classrooms, offices and small businesses are reopening, and there’s a palpable sense of optimism that the often-awkward adjustments we’ve all made personally and professionally in the last year are behind us, never to return. In the world of clinical research, however, some pandemic-necessitated adjustments are proving to be more than emergency stopgap measures to ensure trial continuity — and numerous decentralized clinical trial (DCT) tools and methodologies employed within the last year are likely here to stay as part of biopharma’s new normal.

Onno van de Stolpe, Galapagos CEO (Thierry Roge/Belga Mag/AFP via Getty Images)

Gala­pa­gos chops in­to their pipeline, drop­ping core fields and re­or­ga­niz­ing R&D as the BD team hunts for some­thing 'trans­for­ma­tive'

Just 5 months after Gilead gutted its rich partnership with Galapagos following a bitter setback at the FDA, the Belgian biotech is hunkering down and chopping the pipeline in an effort to conserve cash while their BD team pursues a mission to find a “transformative” deal for the company.

The filgotinib disaster didn’t warrant a mention as Galapagos laid out its Darwinian restructuring plans. Forced to make choices, the company is ditching its IPF molecule ’1205, while moving ahead with a Phase II IPF study for its chitinase inhibitor ’4617.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Angela Merkel (AP Photo/Michael Sohn)

Covid-19 roundup: Pfiz­er sub­mits vac­cine for full ap­proval; Merkel op­pos­es Biden pro­pos­al to sus­pend IP for vac­cines

Pfizer and BioNTech said Friday that they’ve submitted a biologics license application to the FDA for full approval of their mRNA vaccine for those over the age of 16.

How long it will take the FDA to decide on the BLA will be set once it’s been formally accepted by the agency.

Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, previously told Endpoints News that the review of the BLA should take between three and four months, but it may be even faster than that.

An­oth­er failed tri­al for Or­p­hazyme's 'pipeline-in-a-pro­duc­t' leaves shad­ow on drug's fu­ture

The tumultuous ride for Orphazyme continued on Friday as the company announced that a pivotal trial for its lead drug arimoclomol failed yet again, this time in the treatment of ALS, seeding doubt in a drug that had recently been cleared by the FDA for priority review. The latest failure casts a darker shadow on the upcoming decision despite Orphazyme’s upbeat outlook.

In a statement, the Danish biotech announced that the drug did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints evaluating function and survival. But the company has not announced any data surrounding the failure, instead saying that it will publish the complete results later this year.

In­cyte ponies up $12M to set­tle char­i­ty foun­da­tion kick­back claims; US ex­er­cis­es op­tion for more dos­es of mon­key­pox vac­cine

One in a string of lawsuits targeting copay charity foundations, the DOJ has been hunting drugmaker Incyte for what prosecutors alleged was a kickback scheme to court patients. Now, Incyte is clearing its name.

Incyte will shell out $12.6 million to settle claims it funneled funds through a charity foundation to cover federal copays for patients taking its JAK inhibitor Jakafi, the DOJ said this week.

Stéphane Bancel, Getty

Mod­er­na CEO brush­es off US sup­port for IP waiv­er, eyes more than $19B in Covid-19 vac­cine sales in 2021

Moderna is definitively more concerned with keeping pace with Pfizer in the race to vaccinate the world against Covid-19 than it is with Wednesday’s decision from the Biden administration to back an intellectual property waiver that aims to increase vaccine supplies worldwide.

In its first quarter earnings call on Thursday, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel shrugged off any suggestion that the newly US-backed intellectual property waiver would impact his company’s vaccine or bottom line. Still, the company’s stock price fell by about 9% in early morning trading.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CEO Khurem Farooq (Gyroscope)

Hours be­fore ex­pect­ed de­but, Gy­ro­scope post­pones its IPO as 2 oth­er biotechs hold the line on their march to Nas­daq

Editor’s note: Interested in following biopharma’s fast-paced IPO market? You can bookmark our IPO Tracker here.

In a surprising turn of events, UK-based Gyroscope Therapeutics has postponed its IPO mere hours before it was set to debut on Nasdaq.

Working on a gene therapy for wet AMD, Gyroscope was all set and ready to go public earlier this week, setting terms for a $142 million raise with a price range of $20 to $22. But in the wee hours of Friday morning, the company put out a press release saying they would delay their debut “in light of market conditions,” CEO Khurem Farooq said in a statement.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Karyopharm taps long­time Pfiz­er, Am­gen vet to steer the ship; With Mer­ck in the rearview mir­ror, Roger Perl­mut­ter stakes his claim to a CEO job — and it's a sur­pris­ing choice

Like many who work in biopharma, Richard Paulson got started in the field because of a love of science.

Paulson had just finished business school and was looking to start a career that married his two passions. While looking for jobs, he thought of his grandmother who had struggled with Alzheimer’s disease, recalling how he saw first-hand what innovative medicines can do for patients. Ultimately, he started his first job in the space as a sales rep at Glaxo Wellcome, one of GlaxoSmithKline’s predecessors before its merger with SmithKline Beecham in 2000.

EMA safe­ty com­mit­tee seeks more in­fo on heart in­flam­ma­tion fol­low­ing Pfiz­er Covid-19 vac­cine

The European Medicines Agency’s safety committee said Friday that it’s aware of cases of inflammation of the heart muscle and inflammation of the membrane around the heart, mainly reported following vaccination with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, known in Europe as Comirnaty.

“There is no indication that these cases are due to the vaccine,” the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee said.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.