Five Questions With: Dr. Eli Adashi

Dr. Eli Adashi is a tenured professor of medical science at Brown University. He recently co-authored a commentary in The American Journal of Bioethics addressing evolving ethics in the realm of genetic editing.
Dr. Eli Adashi is a tenured professor of medical science at Brown University. He recently co-authored a commentary in The American Journal of Bioethics addressing evolving ethics in the realm of genetic editing.

Dr. Eli Adashi is a tenured professor of medical science at Brown University. He is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, the Association of American Physicians, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He received his medical degree from the Sackler School of Medicine and completed his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts. He recently co-authored a commentary in The American Journal of Bioethics addressing evolving ethics in the realm of genetic editing.

PBN: What do you personally see as the greatest medical risks associated with modifying the human genome at the present time?

ADASHI: Off-target modifications, i.e., technological imperfections that would have to be addressed first. Irresponsible use for nontherapeutic purposes such as trait enhancement.

PBN: Is it your view that modifying the human genome is inevitable? Will people look back on this time 50 years from now and wonder why anyone objected?

- Advertisement -

ADASHI: Yes and yes. To paraphrase Dr. Craig Venter of the human genome sequencing fame: “It is not a question of if but when.”

PBN: What specific genetic problem or complex of problems do you see as the area of greatest promise for modifying the genome?

ADASHI: Initially, the greatest promise will be in addressing disorders that depend on a single gene, either in the DNA of the cell’s nucleus or mitochondria, that we can’t predict and prevent before an embryo is fertilized and implanted in the mother. Later, health-enhancing single gene modification, for example, heart disease. Finally, complex disease-related gene modification as a preventive measure, for example, diabetes.

PBN: In your American Journal of Bioethics commentary, you discuss the difference between research into genome editing and clinical genome editing. Is it fair to say that scientists are looking to accumulate evidence to prove the importance of clinical genome editing?

ADASHI: The research efforts are focused on addressing the residual technological challenges and on validating the clinical utility of genome editing in preclinical experimental models.

PBN: You discuss the importance of maintaining a cool head when examining the subject of genome modification. What have been the strongest reactions among fellow scientists against the prospect of clinical genome modification?

ADASHI: Concerns over the modification … appear to dominate the discussion. The latter is viewed by some as substituting for natural evolution and as modifying the natural gene pool. None of these concerns is new. All of them have been encountered with prior breakthroughs that have been described as representing a “slippery slope,” “playing god,” and “crossing a line.” Other, vaguer concerns have to do with fear of revising the laws of nature, fear of altering the natural order known to man for millennia, fear of the unknown, fear of tampering with creation, and fear of trust betrayed and of technology running unchecked.

No posts to display