Lawmakers have dropped language in a draft spending bill that bars embryo editing to create a baby.
Claude Cortier/Science Source
A Democrat-led spending panel in the U.S. House of Representatives has dropped a provision that banned embryo editing with the intention of creating a baby. The draft bill is still moving through the legislative process, however, and Republicans will likely push to restore the language.
The ban was first added to the law that funded the U.S. government in 2016. It bars the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from considering any clinical trial application “in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Although a different “rider” bars the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from funding human germline editing—or the genetic modification of sperm, eggs, or embryos—such work is permissible with private funding. However, researchers would need FDA approval for a clinical trial.
A 2020 draft spending bill approved on 23 May by the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the FDA does not contain the rider, as CQ first reported yesterday. A Democratic aide speaking on background told ScienceInsider: “The provision was dropped because it was inserted in private 3 years ago and has never been subject to public debate. We believe this provision could limit important scientific research and, if Congress chooses to prohibit such research, that should be done in the light of day.”
The rider has served as a de facto U.S. ban on germline editing to create a baby, which is explicitly barred in some countries. Concerns about such experiments intensified in November 2018, when a Chinese scientist announced he had used the CRISPR gene editing tool to modify the genome of twin baby girls in an effort to make them resistant to HIV. That work, which did not go through proper regulatory approvals in China and has been widely condemned as unethical, has drawn calls from some scientists and bioethicists for a global moratorium on human embryo editing.
But some scientific advocacy groups dislike the FDA bill language because it means Congress made the decision, not scientific and regulatory experts. Sean Tipton, chief advocacy, policy, and development officer at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine who is based in Washington, D.C., says the provision was “an antiscience rider.” Removing it “allows the FDA to do its job.”
Bioethicist Hank Greely of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, agrees the language was “bad policy.” He adds, “This is a good change, but it raises new challenges, for Congress and for society.”
Dropping the provision frees the FDA to consider allowing a less controversial approach that combines genetic material from a mother, a father, and an egg donor to prevent an embryo from inheriting a mother’s mitochondrial disease, Greely notes. That “three-parent embryo” treatment is being tested in clinical trials in the United Kingdom and has been endorsed by U.S. experts. “It is much farther along … and U.S. clinical trials should not be under a blanket ban,” Greely says.
The top Republican on the House Appropriations agriculture subcommittee, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R–NE), opposed removing the embryo editing ban. “Starting in 2016, the subcommittee acted to prevent an emerging science that would allow for the permanent modification of an individual’s genetics and those of future offspring. This is a prohibition that is accepted by nearly every nation in the world due to the unknown risks,” Fortenberry said.
The rider could still be added to the bill when it is taken up by the full House Appropriations Committee or when it reaches the House floor. The Senate has not yet crafted its version of the spending bill.