Human Fetal Tissue — Considerations

The NIH Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board met on 31 July 2020 to “make recommendations regarding the ethics of research involving human fetal tissue (HFT) proposed in NIH grant and cooperative agreement applications and R&D contract proposals, as set forth in the NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-19-128.” The meeting agenda included a brief time set aside for public comment. Additionally, written comment could be submitted within a prescribed time frame prior to the meeting.

It is my hope that the advisory board seriously considered the following comment penned by this writer, on behalf of the educational non-profit Tennessee Center for Bioethics & Culture:

All human beings belong to one another.  Whatever our genetic constitution, our ethnicity, our color, our femaleness or maleness, our geographic location, or stage of life:  we are part of the human family.   That membership is not bounded by a cradle-to-grave timeline.  As human mammals, our beginnings begin before the exodus from our mothers’ wombs.  From the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, a new human being arises (and sometimes, multiples).  How we treat that human zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, preschooler, child, adolescent, adult, and elder, has effects on that human being – as well as on ourselves.  How we treat other human beings, especially vulnerable ones, tells future generations and civilizations about what kind of people we are.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law the NIH Revitalization Act.  That Act charged the NIH to conduct or support research that reduced the number of animals used in research, and that produced less pain and distress in those animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/pl103-43.pdf). Those are laudable goals.  That same 1993 NIH Revitalization Act authorized the use of human fetuses for research, including fetuses from induced abortion (www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/public-law-103-43/index.html).  The same law that sought to reduce pain and suffering in animals opened the door wider to using nascent human beings as research subjects.  Utilizing tissue that becomes available by virtue of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) does not actively convert living beings into research subjects/objects.  It is not a planned procedure that can be scheduled around tissue procurement firms.  That is not the case, however, with the use of fetal tissue from induced abortion.  The willful taking of tiny, live human beings from their mothers’ wombs, followed by the use of them in whole or in part, as research subjects/objects, sets up a human market.  Abortionists and abortion facilities are paid to render a living being into products or parts.  Then they are paid again to yield up these beings or parts to research.  Money is exchanged for parts or labor, even if said payment is labeled “handling charges.” This is a market, and it is a market in human flesh:  a stain upon our culture and our civilization.

Property rights, payments, and urgent public health needs

Greed is a common concern—a risk, from one perspective, an indictment, from another—raised regarding medical care and the people who profit from providing certain aspects of it.  Nurses don’t get rich.  Doctors, in rich nations, often do.  Public hospitals generally don’t; private, for-profit ones do, and manage their work to make sure they do. 

There’s a much richer ethical tradition than can be recounted here that doctors should not be about profit.  Indeed, key tenets underwriting the understanding of medicine as a learned profession are that the physician enters a covenantal, not transactional, relationship with the patient, and that the physician is duty-bound to efface his self-interest when the patient’s care so requires.  One can argue about the precise boundaries of that, but the principles, even with today’s corporate medicine, still seem generally accepted.   The ancient Christian church gave us the “holy unmercenaries,” saints (generally physicians) who lived in extreme poverty and did not accept payment. 

But the most relevant collective culprit in out time seems to be the Western pharmaceutical industry, which is, to be sure, lucrative, providing high-tech medicines at often high prices.  The principle that the inventor has a right to profit from his invention has led to the standard practice of issuing and protecting patents, which prevent cheap alternatives from becoming available for a number of years.  The idea is that the inventor has those years to make a reasonable profit before the right to praceice the invention becomes more generally available—unless the inventor grants a license to the patent, which of course comes at a price.

The most common remedy for proposed is to limit the price that can be charged.  This is an issue of policy and justice, but not so much one of ethics as of public policy.  The old search for the “just price”—what should something cost—foundered, because the most workable answer turned out to be the market price, assuming that seller and buyer are on equal footing.

A related proposal is that drug companies ought to be non-profit.  The challenges here are that the modern drug industry employs many people, most of whom cannot be considered under the same terms as physicians—they have not taken a covenantal oath to society.  They’re doing jobs, making a living.  Also, being not-for-profit doesn’t eliminate the need for large amounts of money to develop and make drugs.  Countering this is the charge that the prices could or should be lower, that the real costs are not so high to justify pricing, and so on.  These are complex matters that will not be solved on principle but will be the source of ongoing policy disputes that will take on the form of a negotiation, of sorts.

But if one grants that the drug maker is due a reasonable, or even a handsome, profit, then one can still ask, if the medical need is sufficiently acute, when does just, merciful care of suffering people–some rich, many not so much, some from rich countries, many not so much so—demand that the product not be considered a proprietary invention, but a public good?

This question is surfacing as the prospect of one or move COVID-19 vaccines becomes more likely.  The general press has recently reported on various prospective pricing plans from the manufacturers.  Some intend prices that are a bit higher than others, some are discussing charging poor countries less than rich countries, and so on.

A more provocative proposal is to eliminate the property protection from COVID drugs or vaccines.  Recent arguments have held that in no circumstance should patents be enforced, so that inventions would be immediately open on a broad basis, and that one nation should not be able to prefer a product made by a native country be available first to its own citizens; or that, perhaps more simply, that all COVID-related inventions should be placed in an open-access repository for widespread availability.  The fundamental argument is that all such inventions are, and should be, global public goods.

Counter arguments are that people who create new drugs, vaccines, or other products to meet critical needs should be reasonably rewarded, and that not allowing this creates a disincentive to them to make the attempt in the first place.  A government that supports such work has a reason for claiming some consideration when it comes to pricing, and also arguably has a greater moral responsibility to its own citizens than to those of other nations.  Part of that government support arguably includes a duty to provide incentive to the inventors and producers in the first place.

Expect to hear more about this in the general press in the months ahead.

A new cautionary tale for heritable genome editing

A fundamental concern about applying gene editing to human embryos is how to limit the risk of errors, or “off-target” effects.  One makes an edit to change a bad gene’s defect, and presumably prevent the disease the defective gene would cause.  But the current methods to do that, although apparently highly selective, might still make other, unwanted changes as well—with possible deleterious, even disastrous, consequences.

Heretofore, the attention to these “off-target” effects has largely been directed to changes in genes that are separated from the target gene.  However, a recent news item in Nature describes three recent experiments with human embryos in the laboratory, in which large defects were induced in the chromosomes bearing the target gene—that is, right next door.  The difference is a bit like the difference between damage by shrapnel (distant effect) and blowing a 6-foot hole instead of a pinhole (near effect).  The latter is now the new concern.  Apparently, and, for one who does not live the scientific details daily, amazingly, prior analytic techniques were missing the possibility of these big, close-in errors.  “CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem,” the headline reads.  Geez Louise…

The technical details are still to be worked out, but one possibility is that, after the targeted gene is cut by the editing mechanism, the way that repair of the genes is done by the human embryo creates the possibility of introducing errors by copying or shuffling of a big chunk of the gene.  These processes are not fully understood in human embryos, and may be different from what pertains in mouse or other animal embryos, or in single human cells such as egg cells or newly-fertilized eggs.

The big technical message is that a lot is poorly understood and will take a ton of work to sort out before one can be confident that a pregnancy carrying a gene-edited to-be-born human will birth a healthy baby, in the immediate outcome, never mind consequences later in life.  It further suggests that no amount of animal work may lay the matter to rest.  From that it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that many embryos will need to be created, altered, and destroyed for research purposes if heritable human genome editing is to proceed with some assurance of safety.  How long would those embryos have to be kept alive to test?  Quite possibly longer than the few days currently possible and accepted by the scientific community.

Absent that, trying to birth gene-edited children would mean, as this blog said some time ago, that “the babies are the experiment.” 

And, even if one does not grant moral status to the human embryo from the point of conception, one is compelled to seek an accounting of the compelling unmet medical need that supports a careful benefit-risk analysis.  Risks to human subjects—embryos, fetuses, eventually-born babies, women donating eggs, perhaps even women carrying partial pregnancies (to allow study of results from a later point in utero?)—seem substantial, overall costs of the effort raise questions of spending the money better elsewhere in the overall health care of society, and alternative approaches to the diseases in question must all be considered.

Geez Louise.

One other point: the Nature article cites preprints posted, prior to peer review of the science, on the website bioRxiv.  Operated by the outstanding Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the website offers authors the chance “to make their findings immediately available to the scientific community and receive feedback on draft manuscripts before they are submitted to journals.”  Open access and public feed back are good, but the general press often picks up these preprints, whose quality may not have been fully vetted, and runs with headlines—kind of like I am doing here, following Nature.  So we must watch this space to be sure that the research is being accurately described and interpreted.  For the moment, the topic of this post can be taken as another example of “something to watch out for.”

Coronavirus 2019: A case of fear as a harm from technology

One of the ethical concerns in modern medicine is whether new technology developed out of a desire to help people may cause more harm than good. Most of the time we think about this in relation to therapeutic technology, but it may also be true of diagnostic technology. It is usually good to be able to diagnose diseases more accurately but learning about a diagnosis can cause significant stress and anxiety. When that is not balanced by significant benefit to the person learning the diagnosis, diagnostic information can cause more harm than good.

I think we are currently experiencing this type of harm from new diagnostic technology in the current outbreak of Covid-19, and it may be a while before we know whether our ability to diagnose this new virus has actually resulted in more benefit than harm.  Prior to the development of rapid viral DNA testing this new virus would not have been recognized early in the course of its spread. 3000 or 4000 additional deaths from viral pneumonia in China where there are 100,000 deaths from influenza annually might not have been noticed at all. However, there might have been more deaths if the relatively extreme limitations on movement had not been up imposed on the Chinese people in the region where the outbreak began. There has undoubtedly been benefit from being able to identify those who are infected with this new virus and isolating them to help prevent increased spread of the virus. However, knowing that this new virus exists has led to significant fear and panic. Some of the response has undoubtedly been excessive, and those excesses can cause harm. Locking down the entire nation of Italy, restrictions on travel that may be more than what is necessary, and the closing of workplaces does more than just impact the stock market. People are impacted by an overreaction to this new disease. Those of us who are more affluent have enough margin to get by, but there are those who live week-to-week and even day-to-day may be severely impacted by things that are being done more due to fear and panic than well-established public health strategies.

There are hopeful signs that the number of deaths in China from Covid-19 are rapidly decreasing, and if the impact in the rest of the world is no worse than what it has been in China, the deaths from this virus worldwide will be about 3 or 4% of the number of deaths from influenza each year. That is significantly less than the normal fluctuation in influenza deaths from year to year. It is not good that those people have died, but it is not the end of the world. The ability given to us by DNA technology to identify this virus will have helped through proven public health measures to decrease the impact of the disease, but will the overreactions due to fear and panic cause as much or more harm than the virus? We may never know.

A principalist argument against heritable genome editing

In May of 2019 The New Bioethics carried a paper (purchase or subscription required) by Jennifer Gumer of Columbia and Loyola Marymount Universities, summarizing an argument against heritable genome editing (the kind in which an embryo’s genes are edited so that the change will be passed down to the subject’s descendants), based on Belmont principalism.  A brief outline of the argument:

  • Uncertainties about the safety of the procedure make it highly unlikely at best that the principle of nonmaleficence (“first, do no harm”) will be satisfied.  Even if the technique substantially eliminates unintended, “off target” gene changes or mosaicism (some cells have the change, others do not), uncertainty will remain about whether interactions between genes may be altered, potentially beneficial positive effects of the “bad” genes may be lost, or the edited gene may have different effects in different environments.  Further, the edited gene will persist in the human population. 
    • At least, this concern would appear greatly to limit the number of genetic conditions that would be appropriate for heritable editing, to a few where a very discreet genetic abnormality that causes a devastating disease is well understood.  Such limits would almost certainly be unenforceable, as efforts to edit genes that clearly cause disease would be expanded to edit genes that predispose to or increase risks of disease, or event to insert or add genes thought to protect from disease.  The additional complexity of the tasks would further confound attempts to calculate risks.
  • The justice of heritable genome editing could well be limited by:
    • The costs, either in the individual case or more broadly on the health care system because in vitro fertilization would almost certainly be required to carry out the heritable editing;
    • Diversion of resources from dealing with environmental or socioeconomic conditions with greater overall impact on the health of the human population;
    • A bias against people with disabilities may be fostered.
  • If heritable gene editing included efforts to enhance traits perceived desirable, harms could arise from miscalculations about whether such enhancement truly yields a better life (e.g., if one could be genetically altered to require less sleep), or pressures on the offspring to perform up to enhanced expectations, again violating the principle of nonmaleficence.
  • Efforts at enhancement would create eugenic pressure to extend the enhancement widely through the population, and/or create a split-class society of (presumably wealthy) genetically enhanced “haves” and unenhanced “have nots,” violating the principle of justice.
  • Limiting heritable genetic editing to the few cases of single-gene-caused serious diseases would benefit only a few affected individuals and their parents, by helping the latter to have genetically-related, unaffected offspring, while risks such as those outlined above could affect many, either by creating direct risks in the population or indirect risks of lost opportunities from deferral of attention to other health and societal problems.
  • Likewise, an appeal to autonomy fails.  Procreative freedom has not yet been held to include a right to bear a genetically-related child, much less one free of undesired traits, and even if such a right were recognized, it would not be unbounded, but would be subject to limits set by concerns such as well-being of the resulting child and societal concerns.  Moreover, parental exercise of autonomy for heritable gene editing would limit the autonomy of society by potentially exposing others to unintended risks without their consent, and would limit the autonomy of gene-edited descendants, whose genomes would be determined at least in part by the decisions of their ancestors.

Thus, in brief, runs the argument.  Like the utilitarian argument summarized in my February 6 post, these contemporary discussions are important to review from time to time.  Further perspectives and analysis to follow in future posts.

An argument for heritable genome editing

Some weeks ago, a utilitarian perspective in favor of heritable genome editing was published (purchase or subscription required to read).  In it, the author, Kevin Smith of Abertay University in the United Kingdom, begins with a general defense of utilitarianism, the ethical philosophy that what is morally good is what produces the greatest good for the greatest number, as opposed to alternative ways of judging that invoke duty, principles, God’s law, or virtues.  In the process, he comments that ethicists who do not consider themselves utilitarian often employ risk-benefit or cost-benefit analyses in making particular judgments.  “We’re all utilitarians now,” as it were.   Smith then proceeds to make a case by a utilitarian, for utilitarians, in favor of pursuing heritable genome editing.  Key points:

  • Genetic editing will technically improve, reducing if not eliminating risks and broadening the ability not only to eliminate genetic disease but also to enhance complex genetic traits and correct mutations that increase risk for disease.  He envisions a day when correcting gene editing errors will readily be reversible by further editing (an “undo” function, as it were).  Consequently, we should anticipate that heritable genome editing will provide many benefits but few harms.
  • Early adoption of technologies is generally beneficial in the end, as, he argues, was the case with IVF, because to delay is to put off the benefits.  In the case of heritable genome editing, we won’t know how well it works without forging ahead.  Nonetheless, the editing of embryos leading to the birth of the edited twins in China in late 2018 was a bit reckless, and the reaction threatens to regrettably and unnecessarily retard progress.
  • Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is not a preferable option because some genetic diseases cannot be avoided with PGD (i.e., if all IVF embryos are affected, so there is no unaffected embryo to select) and, more importantly, any additional risk from heritable genome editing is likely to be limited to a relatively few cases in the relative short term, while ultimately yielding much larger benefits to a larger number, justifying the greater risk to some.  (This, I suppose, could be considered crudely analogous to the accepted human research principle that risks to subjects may be acceptable if potential benefits to society—e.g., in development of a candidate new medicine—are possibly greater.  It’s OK for some people to get sick from too high a dose of an experimental drug, for example.)
  • Heritable genome editing should be used soon, because doing so will hasten the first celebrated successes, which will supercharge public support to expand the use of the technology.
  • Adoption is an important alternative, because it increases the happiness of an existing individual, the adoptee, instead of the more speculative prospect of a healthy new person without disease from a mishap from the gene editing.  But if a couple chooses not to adopt, preferring to have a genetically-related offspring, they should not be denied the opportunity if one is possibly available.
  • In general, more new people means more overall happiness for the human race in general, because the new people are more likely to be happy and not, and at least not diminish the happiness of other existing people in the progress.  (This seems to take for granted that heritable genome editing will not cause a detrimental population explosion—which, indeed, seems pretty unlikely.)
  • Having a child produces more happiness for all involved than not having one.
  • Having a genetically related child is better than having one that is partly unrelated, as would be the case with a child conceived using sperm or egg donation from a donor without a genetic disease to be avoided.
  • In cases where a couple simply could not avoid their naturally-conceived child having a bad genetic disease, to go ahead and conceive such a child would entail suffering for the child and parents, and the moral benefits of suffering are overrated.
  • The upside of heritable genome editing—i.e., the potential for human enhancement—is huge.

Many of these points are reasonable as far as they go.  Where this sort of argument leaves one unsatisfied is in the high optimism for technical success without unintended consequences; conceiving the risk-benefit relationship as if it can readily be calculated with confidence; disregard for broad consequences for how we understand ourselves, our begetting, and how we should receive fellow humans who are less than fully whole, physically; and, in some cases, the potential for alternative treatments.

Smith rejects a “precautionary” approach as too timid, but still concludes that maybe we should wait a bit, for the reaction to the Chinese twins’ birth to wear off and for scientist to be able to marshal further their technical case. 

Discussion to follow in future posts.

Twenty-first Century Divorce: Who Gets Custody of the Embryos?

A recent CBS news story provides yet another example of the technology and legal cart pulling the ethical horse.

In short, in 2014, an Arizona couple used in vitro fertilization (IVF) to preserve her eggs after she learned she had breast cancer and would require chemotherapy. The woman’s then boyfriend originally declined to be the sperm donor but later agreed when the woman, perhaps desperate to preserve her eggs, considered using a former boyfriend as the donor (fertilized eggs survive cryogenic preservation far better than unfertilized eggs). The couple executed a contractual agreement, provided by the clinic, as to the disposition of the frozen embryos (“their joint property”) should their relationship divorce or dissolve prior to implantation. They married several days later, underwent IVF yielding 7 embryos, which were cryogenically preserved and the woman underwent successful chemotherapy.

Unfortunately, after 2 years of marriage but prior to implantation, the husband filed for divorce. The pre-IVF contract stipulated that both husband and wife had to mutually agree on the disposition of the embryos – if not, they agreed a court could decide the embryos’ fate. Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the embryos should be put up for adoption, siding in one sense with the ex-husband to prevent the ex-wife from “using” the embryos. The decision upset many in Arizona to the point where the Arizona Legislature enacted a law to award the frozen embryos, in the future cases of divorce, to the spouse who “intends to use them to have a baby.” The new law will not benefit the ex-wife so, at the time of this blog entry, she was considering whether or not to appeal her case to the US Supreme Court.

There is a lot here to consider. I want to focus on just a few issues. First, I left scare quotes around several of the terms used in this case. The frozen embryos are indeed legally “joint property”, much like children in other cases of divorce. The couple could have just as easily checked the box on the contract to select “Destroy the Embryos” in case of their divorce. This same choice is one that many married (and unmarried) couples make regularly in IVF absent divorce when deciding the fate of unwanted or unused embryos following successful pregnancy and birth from prior IVF cycles. So asking a court to decide the fate of the frozen embryos is similar to children of divorced couples (though their “destruction” is not currently an option.)

“Using the embryos” is terminology that further emphasizes the commodification of frozen embryos as we consider them as a convenience for, or, for the sole benefit of, the parent(s). While I can empathize with the ex-wife’s desire to preserve her ability to have future children in the face of cancer treatment, her choice of an ambivalent (then) boyfriend over an ex-boyfriend as the father of her future children has proven disappointing, if not disastrous, for her in the present. It is harder for me to grasp the rationale of the ex-husband, who, though previously agreeing to father his ex-wife’s children, now (vindictively?) refuses to allow her to mother them, particularly since (continuing with my horse analogy) that fatherhood horse left the barn years ago.

As we allegedly advance our technical and scientific skills by increasing the various situations in which women can become pregnant, we are demanding more legal decisions when these new situations cause conflict rather than discussing and agreeing beforehand whether or not to permit these situations from occurring in the first place.

New technology, old moral problem

Many of our discussions in bioethics are about whether the things that are possible to do with advances in medical technology are things that we ought to do. However, some of the moral concerns in medicine are much more basic. They have to do with the idea that dates back at least to the Hippocratic oath that physicians should use their knowledge for the benefit of the people they treat. Patients should not be used by physicians in ways that are harmful to the patient in order to increase physicians’ income.

Medscape recently reported on a study presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2019 Scientific Congress which looked at how well fertility clinics across the US complied with the Society’s online advertising policy. They found that many clinics were not following the policy. The major concern was that there were a significant number of clinics that were advertising success rates without revealing the additional information needed to make that rate meaningful. The most serious concerns had to do with clinics that advertised high success rates without revealing that they also had higher than recommended rates of transferring more than one embryo per cycle and had significantly higher than expected rates of twin pregnancies. It is well known that twin pregnancies have a higher risk of complications for both the mother and the babies. Transferring more than one embryo increases the chance of achieving pregnancy and live birth with a cycle of IVF but also increases the likelihood of twin or other multiple gestation pregnancies and the risk to the mother and babies. By transferring more than one embryo in situations in which it is not generally considered justified, these clinics are increasing the success rate that they advertise to obtain patients by doing something which causes harm to their patients.

When the physicians at a fertility clinic prioritize their income above doing what is best for the people they are treating, they have gone beyond unethical business practices. They have abandoned one of the main things that makes the practice of medicine a moral profession.

Controlling gene editing

The title does not mean societal or legal control of gene editing technology.  Rather, it speaks of controlling, or shutting off, a specific gene editing process.  In retrospect, it had to be the case that there is a resistance, or control, mechanism for the CRISPR system, the gene-editing machinery that functions as a way for bacteria to resist invasion by viruses.  An engaging essay in Nature this week discusses this on a level accessible to one who, like me, is not a technical specialist in the field.  Briefly, a few years ago a grad student at UC/San Francisco discovered cases in which the CRISPR system was ineffective in certain bacteria.  Following up led to the discovery of some 50 proteins that can act as “kill switches” for CRISPR.

On a surface level, the implications are clear—learn how to deploy these proteins and one can monitor one’s gene editing efforts for unwanted effects, or for spinning out of control, and if things haven’t gotten too far out of hand, one could turn things off—have an antidote, as it were.

Suppose at some future date that someone were being treated with a gene editing approach for a genetic disease, and things start happening suggesting that other genes than were intended to be the target were being altered.  Presumably one could intervene to treat or prevent the consequences.  Or suppose that genes were being edited to control a certain pest, like malaria-causing mosquitoes.  Presumably there could be an intervention to try to stop the process.

That’s a pretty superficial discussion, but technical experts in the field are trying to learn how to use these “kill switches” to control their gene-editing efforts. 

The also-superficial implication seems clear: these efforts should be understood, and applied in laboratory systems, then perhaps in “somatic” gene editing (treating an existing person for a genetic disease) BEFORE attempts are made to edit human embryos, whether the embryos are intended for gestation or birth or not.  Until things are MUCH more fully understood, there should be no direct work on heritable genome editing.

Chastening and enthusiasm about genome editing

A writer in Nature says that China sent a “strong signal” by punishing He Jiankui and two colleagues with fines, jail times, and bans against working again in human reproductive technology or applying for research funding.  (They lost their jobs as well and may not be able to do research work, presumably in any field, in a Chinese institution again.)  It is encouraging, this writer says, that China took this action demonstrating a commitment to human research ethics.  He and other researchers doing gene-editing work that is not ethically objectionable worry that there may be collateral damage, so to speak, against ANY gene-editing research in China.

Another writer in Nature says cites progress under “appropriate caution” for using gene editing techniques for so-called “somatic” gene editing; that is, editing disease genes in an existing person with that disease, to treat it.  This is, in essence, a form of gene therapy and is ethically permissible under proper research ethical guidelines.  Some clinical trials in progress involve injecting the gene-editing apparatus into a person, while most such trials remove the person’s blood cells, edit them in the laboratory, then re-introduce them into the bloodstream, after which the edited cells are left to mature normally.  The latter approach is particularly attractive to treat genetic blood diseases such as sickle cell anemia.

Both perspectives seem correct, as far as they go—never mind whether Dr. He’s jail sentence fits the crime, as Joy Riley asked on this blog last weekend.  Never mind also whether Dr. He’s research should be published; as Mark McQuain commented, it’s a bit incongruous to want to assess the technical merits of work that should not have been done in the first place.  He linked an opinion in Technology Review that argued, briefly, that because the ethics of editing genes in human embryos is under societal debate, people trying to decide on the ethical merits should be able to assess for themselves whether Dr. He succeeded, technically at what he set out to do.  (The consensus to date seems to be, no, he did not.)   But the role of technical success in assessing the ethical merits of a medical intervention—or, better, an intervention made in the name of medicine—depends on the degree to which the ethical judgment is a matter of making a reasonably reliable of risk and benefit, and the degree to which risk-benefit is a criterion for judging the ethical merits.  And therein, as they say, lies the rub—which I hope to revisit in coming posts.