Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair

CBEL Report Volume 7, Issue 1

Regular Article

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair
Silvia Croydon *Abstract
This article advocates for a bolder stance on the part of scientists and other academics in Japan on the issue of therapeutic heritable human genome editing (HHGE). The article’s contention is that the current moratorium on HHGE
science is unlikely to be broken until the moral scruples that the public has on this subject are addressed and resolved.
After reviewing literature that highlights the untenability of the popular objections to HHGE, the article goes on todescribe the bold pronouncements made in the aftermath of the 2018 He Jiankui affair by Western scientists andcontrast these with the silence, or half-hearted endorsement of HHGE, on the part of the Japanese scholarly elite. The
article then ends with a discussion on the role that society and social debate have to play in guiding the advancements
in technology and science. Drawing parallels with technological developments in other areas, I finish with an urging
towards Japan’s scientific elite to play a more proactive role in educating the public on this matter.
Keywords: heritable human genome editing; Japan; debate; He Jiankui; reproductive therapy; science
1. Introduction

visionary’s contemporaries in Japan lacked the presci-

Although this is not popularly known, Japan is theence to see the value of what he was proposing. Wada’s

place where the idea was born that led to the United

initial request for funding was rejected, and even whenStates (US)-led Human Genome Project. As has beensome funding was granted to him a while after his initialdescribed in a number of academic publications (Cook-

application, the sum was so insignificant that he decided

Deegan 1994; Ito 2005; Kishi 2004; Sasaki 2019), it was

the next best way to proceed in order to see his visiona University of Tokyo molecular biologist, Akiyoshi

realized was to try to set up an international collabora-

Wada, who pioneered in the 1970s the idea of develop-

tive project, with his foreign academic counterparts

ing technology to allow the rapid sequencing of deoxy-

bringing the necessary funds. Crossing the Pacific, heribonucleic acid (DNA). Indeed, in 1975, having the vi-

went to the US to talk to James Watson—one of the sci-sion of an automated rapid DNA sequencing machine,

entists who had been credited in 1962 with the Nobel

he applied for government funding to try to establish a

Prize for the discovery of the structure of the DNA. By

project whereby he could build one. Alas, thisthat time, under the auspices of Wada’s minor national*

Associate Professor, Osaka University, Graduate School of Human Sciences
E-mail: croydon@hus.osaka-u.ac.jp.
1

CBEL Report Volume 6, Issue 2

Silvia Croydon

project at home, two other Japanese scientists, Yuzuru

research purposes, is virtually non-existent here. Given

Fushimi and Hideki Kambara, had invented technolo-that the country continues to be a powerhouse for re-gies that would later become critical to the success ofsearch and innovation in many other areas, this failure

the Human Genome Project . Regrettably for Wada andto engage with HHGE is quite notable.

his team, however, since Japan and the US were in theWith regards to HHGE, what ought to be noted is

midst of a trade war, Wada’s initiative would be misin-that on a normative level the debate has greatly ad-

terpreted by the Americans as a threat, with the upshot

vanced in recent times, with a great many bioethicists

being that the government there would refuse Wadaand legal scholars advancing the argument that using

funding, only to expend the most generous sum of $120

HHGE, at least in the case of reproductive therapy, ismillion to Watson to lead his own version of the project

justifiable. Although a number of works can be citedof sequencing a human’s entire genome. Ultimately, asthat do this (e.g., Gyngell et al. 2019, Johnson 2021, andhas been opined many a times in Japanese science cir-Thaldar 2022), it is perhaps worth singling out the argu-

cles, when a draft of the first human genome sequenced

ment developed by the Stanford University’s Henry

was published in 2001, merely 6% of it was done by

Greely, who refutes the fundamental premises of the ob-

Japanese scientists, whilst the contribution to it by thejections made to HHGE. Greely explains, for example,

US and the UK was 59% and 31% respectively. The ideathat there is no such thing as “the human germline ge-

started from Japan, but in the end the fanfare over suc-nome”, which is sacred and in need of preservation forcess happened in the US and the UK, with Wada, Fu-

posterity; in fact, he points out, there are 7.3 billion hu-

shimi and Kambara becoming the “unsung heroes” ofman germline genomes, because every living person has

the Human Genome Project.

a ‘germline genome’’ and “each one is different”

Against the background of how cutting-edge Japan(Greely 2021: 209). Furthermore, ad hoc genomic

had been in the field of molecular biology in thechanges, he highlights, occur all the time anyway, both

1970s/1980s and how a lesson was contained therein for

inadvertently and as a result of deliberate actions on our

the country to advance research ideas generated domes-

part. To cite one of Greely’s examples that illustrate thistically, it is conspicuous that, as of today, no Japanesepoint, the use of synthetic insulin has boosted over time

research exists that seeks to wield control over the ge-

the number of people with DNA variations leading tonome—such research seems still very much neglected

diabetes, since those with this condition who would

here. In particular, it stands out that the number of sci-have died as a child in the past now live long enough toentific papers reporting experimental work on heritablereproduce. Similarly, the transition from hunting tohuman genome editing (HHGE) is at zero. As a search

farming centuries ago resulted in a greater number ofon databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and Re-

copies in our gene pool of starch-digesting genes.

searchmap (which is operated by the Japanese govern-

To return the focus on HHGE in Japan, with a viewment), would reveal, as of 17 March 2023, science seek-

to pushing this country to play its part in the develop-

ing to manipulate the human genome, even only forment of a responsible path for therapeutic HHGE, the2

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair

CBEL Report Volume 7, Issue 1

present article seeks to put the spotlight on this regretta-role (Nakazawa et al. 2018). Whilst promulgating clear

ble state of affairs. Some discussion already exists thatrules would also be beneficial, ultimately, I argue, thesees the absence of HHGE science in Japan as a result

way to break the stalemate in Japan’s HHGE science isof confusing and contradictory regulatory rules in thisthrough helping the public overcome the moral scruples

area. In particular, as it will be elaborated on later in theit has about it.

article, the Hokkaido University scholar Tetsuya Ishii
has pointed out how the Japanese situation is regulated

2. The global state of HHGE debate after the He

by a multitude of administrative guidelines, as opposed

Jiankui storm

to by a clear single law, and that although some people

In May 2015, precisely 17 months since Chinamight interpret this bureaucratically drawn framework

claimed the monkey in the global race to gene-edit

to permit genome editing of human embryos, as long as

mammals (Niu et al. 2014), a team of 16 Chinese scien-

it is at the laboratory level and not for use in reproduc-tists reported the first experimental work of this kind intion, it is also possible to come to a conclusion from cer-human embryos. Although the embryos used in this ex-

tain earlier-installed rules that this is not the case (Ishii

periment were non-viable, since the world was far from2020). Even though, since Ishii’s submission of his

having reached a consensus that clinical HHGE would

manuscript, it is also possible to point to the instalment

be morally acceptable, the authors had found it difficultin 2019 of the “Guidelines for Research Using Gene-to take their manuscript to print. Indeed, prior to being

altering Technologies on Human Fertilized Embryos",

accepted by Protein and Cell—a journal established inwhich permits genome editing on surplus embryos, and2010 with an editorial board comprising predominantly

the revision in 2021 of the “Ethical Guidelines for As-

of China-based scientists—they had received rejections

sisted Reproductive Technology Research that Involves

from both Nature and Science. As for the results pre-the Generation of Human Embryos”, which permits ge-

sented by the paper, they demonstrated an astonishingnome editing on new embryos), the existence of theselack of fidelity: of the 71 embryos that survived inter-earlier-dating regulations Ishii mentions could be said tovention with the clustered regularly interspaced shortmake HHGE still a grey area in Japan. Against thispalindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 to correct the mu-

backdrop, the present article seeks to advocate for atation causing the lethal heritable blood disorder beta

bolder and more proactive stance by the scholarly com-thalassemia, 28 were cleaved, and only 4 contained themunity here, just as has been the case elsewhere, in in-

replacement genetic material, but with regards to theseteracting and communicating with the citizenry about

4 embryos, a great many off-target mutations werewhat the science involves and what issues are at stake.

found, and still more were envisioned (Liang et al.

In seeking to advance this agenda, the article joins2015).

Nakazawa et al. in arguing for a vibrant grassroots-level

Two years after this paper, another manuscript ofdomestic discussion on this subject, with social scien-

this nature emerged, this time making it to Nature, fromtists and humanities specialists taking the leadershipwithin the American community of scientists. In this3

Silvia Croydon

CBEL Report Volume 6, Issue 2

second study, the team of the developmental biologist

Collins 2019; Getz & Dellaire 2019; Baylis 2019; see

Shoukhrat Mitalipov at the Oregon Health and Science

also Welcome Sanger Institute 2019; Royal Society

University in Portland made the landmark claim that his

2019; SCIMEX 2019).

team had managed to rid human embryos of the disease

As the dust was settling from the He announcement,

mutation giving rise to the deadly condition known as

however, the voice was raised from within the Western

hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. “By modulating the cell

academic community that the missteps committed by acycle stage at which the DSB [double-strand break] was

few rogue scientists should not divert us from the goal

induced”, the team stated, “we were able to avoid mo-of acquiring technical competency in HHGE so as to re-saicism in cleaving embryos and achieve a high yield of

spond to the unmet medical need of certain patients. Alt-homozygous embryos carrying the wild-type MYBPC3

hough all of Harris 2018a & 2018b, Steffann et al. 2018,

gene without evidence of off-target mutations” (Ma et

Gyngell et al. 2019, Brokowski & Adli 2019, Hammer-

al. 2017). Asserting in this way that they have corrected

stein et al. 2019, Lovell-Badge 2019, Rasnich 2020, andthe pathogenic gene mutation whilst avoiding problems

Greely 2021 could be cited as expressions of this idea

such as mosaicism, Ma et al. advocated the use ofthat there is a moral imperative to act upon HHGE sci-

HHGE as a complementary therapeutic measure to pre-ence, one particularly strong exposition of it is found in

implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), only to be imme-

a 2019 essay entitled After the Storm—A Responsible

diately thereafter challenged to provide a validation ofPath for Genome Editing and penned by the influential

their conclusions (Egli et al. 2017).

trio of geneticists George Q. Daley of the Harvard Med-With little else being reported in the way of researchical School and the Boston Children’s Hospital, Robinon applying CRISPR/Cas9 for human reproduction atLovell-Badge of the United Kingdom (UK)’s flagshipthe time of the Second International Summit on Humanfor discovery research in biomedicine—the Francis

Genome Editing in 2018 in Hong Kong, the announce-

Crick Institute, and Julie Steffann of Paris University

ment by the Chinese biophysicist He Jinkui came as aand the Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital (Daley et al.

shock that he had gone on to apply this technique clini-2019). Daley, it is worth noting, had previously individ-

cally. Although, as elaborated by Stanford University le-ually gone as far as outlining what a responsible path-gal scholar Henry Greely (Greely 2019), there are nu-

way for clinical translation of HHGE would look likemerous other levels at which He’s action was con-

(Daley 2018; also cited in Daley 2020). Included in thisdemned, the criticism of his decision to employ in hu-

outline were both: a list of safeguards for ensuring faith-mans a tool for which there was no demonstrable une-

ful implementation, with a special focus on the chief

quivocal evidence that it is safe and effective was over-concern about mosaicism, and a hierarchy, developed onwhelming. The resulting furore, which has been widely

principles of medical triage, of “disease indications thatcovered in the media and academic circles, saw calls formight represent a gradation of medical necessity, anda moratorium coming from various directions, including

thus permissibility” (Daley 2020: 8). However, it wasfrom leading scientists (Lander et al. 2019; Wolinetz &here in this joint essay that Daley argued most forcefully4

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair

CBEL Report Volume 7, Issue 1against making a reflex reaction to He, citing the extent

subject to a comprehensive oversight framework

to which patients stand to benefit from HHGE. Apart

that would protect the research subjects and theirfrom the couples where both partners carry homozygous

descendants, and if sufficient safeguards were inrecessive disease alleles, or those where one of theplace to protect against inappropriate expansion tomembers is homozygous for an autosomal dominantuses that are less compelling or less well understood.

disease allele such as that for Huntington’s disease,(NAS 2017: 134)

there are all those couples, a significant majority, the trioof authors argued, who are affected by an autosomal re-

To go back to George Daley—the Dean of Harvard

cessive or dominant genetic disease and whom pre-im-

Medical School—though, even at the 2018 Summit

plantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has failed (Daley etwhere He Jiankui made the revelation that provoke

al. 2019: 899).

widespread immediate outrage, he made the step of ask-

Today, whilst caution is still very much the watch-

ing for HHGE not to be ruled out in principle. Daley,

word when it comes to HHGE, a moratorium on it has

who, by his own admission, had been involved in re-increasingly come to be seen as too extreme a measure.

viewing the above-mentioned first HHGE scientific pa-

To elaborate, as evident from the analysis of the wealthpers, stressed that the feasibility for HHGE is here andof ethics reports and statements issued on HHGE bythat the ethical considerations can no longer be put off.

2018 by various national and international bioethics

To quote him:bodies (Brokowski 2018), there is a consensus that clinical HHGE should be banned at present. On the other… a number of groups have applied gene editing

hand, however, the common conclusion of the three ar-

now to human embryos in the context of in vitro fer-

guably highest profile national bodies that have issued

tilization and attempting to determine variations of

documents on HHGE—namely, those of the US, the UK

a protocol that would enhance the fidelity and re-and Germany—was that no categorical ethical barriers

duce mosaicism. I think there has been an emerging

exist for its use for reproductive purposes. To illustrateconsensus that the off-target problem is manageable,

the tenor of one of these texts, the US National Acade-and in some cases even infinitesimal. There aremies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), forsome interesting proofs of principles, like diseases

example, states that:such as beta-thalassemia that could potentially beapproached with this strategy (Daley 2018).

Heritable genome-editing trials must be approachedwith caution, but caution does not mean they must

This was followed by him laying down the details of thebe prohibited. If the technical challenges were over-procedure through which embryos can be effectively as-

come and potential benefits were reasonable in lightsessed for what he calls “fidelity of genome editingof the risks, clinical trials could be initiated if lim-

safety” (Ibid.). Included in this outline were both: a list

ited to the most compelling circumstances, ifof safeguards for ensuring faithful implementation, with5

Silvia Croydon

CBEL Report Volume 6, Issue 2

a special focus on the chief concern about mosaicism,

only damaged the populace’s view of this procedure in

and a hierarchy, developed on principles of medical tri-

a way that further inhibits debate. To cite concrete evi-age, of ‘disease indications that might represent a gra-dence of this, through a sequence of questionnaires fromdation of medical necessity, and thus permissibility’

the three years of 2016, 2018 and 2019, it was shown in(Daley 2020, 8).

the context specifically of Japan that the widely publicised 2018 HHGE scandal led to a significant decline in

3. The current state of the debate in Japan:

the acceptance of the use of the genome editing technol-

Too limited

ogy in general, and particularly so for human reproduc-

Whilst strong admonitions, such as the ones by Da-tion (Watanabe et al. 2020). More specifically, the sur-ley, Lovell-Badge and Steffann mentioned above, wereveys, which asked questions about the acceptability ofmade in the West against knee-jerk reactions to He

genome editing in a range of fields, from fishery to ag-

Jiankui, in Japan, by contrast, the atmosphere was one

ricultural breeding, to human reproduction, revealed inof complete condemnation of HHGE, even as an idea.

the final sample year a stark rise in disapproval of the

Nobody was seen to argue here the case for a responsi-

technology’s utilization of fertilized human eggs—fromble path forward for HHGE or to uphold the principle

12% in 2018 to 29% in 2019. Moreover, respondents onthat if it were technically possible for us to change ourwhom use in fertilized human eggs made the strongest

germline genome safely and effectively, there might be

impression were found to have risen from 15.9% incases where it would be compelling to do so. Nor did

2018 to 20.4% in 2019, with this being interpreted byanyone take the challenge of pointing out the flaws thatthe trio of scientists that had conducted these surveys as

underpin the common objections to HHGE and high-“suggesting the news of the twin babies in China had alighting the responsibility to continue pursuing mastery

substantial influence on the Japanese public,” raisingof the technique for the sake of those currently without

public awareness of the genome editing methods, buta therapeutic reproductive option. Even today, the dif-also damaging their reputation. Whilst this is merely aference is striking between the record of firm affirma-

speculation, it is possible to consider that this docu-

tions made in the aftermath of the He announcement bymented change in public opinion in Japan will makescientists and bioethicists in other countries of the pro-leading public figures, including politicians, and prom-

spective value of prudently implemented HHGE, andinent scientists more hesitant when it comes to discuss-

the silence, on the other hand, that remains in Japan on

ing HHGE. Ultimately, this can only restrict the public

this subject.

debate, meaning that the ethical challenges surrounding

In the midst of this silence on the part of the aca-

the technology would remain unexamined, with thedemic community, it is no wonder that public support

moratorium in science continuing to the detriment offor HHGE was found to drop in the aftermath of the He

those who need HHGE.

Jiankui fiasco. Indeed, in the absence of counterforces,

Recently, an attempt was made by Hokkaido Uni-the episode of the botched HHGE experiment in China

versity’s bioethicist Tetsuya Ishii to create momentum6Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair

CBEL Report Volume 7, Issue 1

for the enactment of a law on HHGE, which he saw as

the purpose of developing a therapy for people with in-

the most appropriate approach to breaking the morato-

tractable diseases was deemed unacceptable), and itrium on this science. In particular, lamenting the virtu-

wanted to see a law promulgated to this effect (SCJ

ally non-existent HHGE science, Ishii pointed to is the2017). In the meantime, at the government level, delib-

confusion and uncertainty that must exist amongst Jap-

erations had already begun as to whether regulatory ac-anese scientists as to whether they are free, i.e. withouttion is needed. In particular, an investigative committee

the threat of being penalized, to engage in such work.

set up within the Council for Science, Technology and“When it comes to research involving human germline

Innovation (CSTI) operating under the Cabinet Officegenome modification”, he elaborated, “the Japanese

had been discussing the ethical issues since 2016. With

regulatory framework [as created by the Ministry of Ed-

the academics’ recommendations being issued, the fur-ucation, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

ther step was taken of establishing a Task Force under(MEXT) and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Wel-

the CSTI to review the policy on handling of embryos.

fare (MHLW)], is characterized by gaps and inconsist-

During the deliberations within this Task Force, theencies” (Ishii 2020: 442), with the definitions used in it

view was expressed by a number of Japanese scientific“often [being] at odds with scientific understanding”

Societies (e.g., the Japan Medical Association, the Japan(Ibid.: 448). “What Japan needs [he concluded] is a co-Society for Gene and Cell Therapy, the Japan Society ofherent, up-to-date, fundamental law that governs both

Human Genetics, the Japan Society of Obstetrics andbasic research and medical use of human germ cells as

Gynecology, and the Japan Society of Reproductive

well as embryos, one that is discussed in and approved

Medicine) that there is a limit to which they can self-

by the Diet, Japan’s bicameral legislature, instead of by

regulate and that the promulgation of a law on HHGE isa Cabinet Committee, to ensure broad social under-

necessary in order to prevent misuse of the technology

standing of, and support for, scientifically important re-(Nakazawa et al. 2018; Kato 2020). However, when the

search on human germline (Ibid.: 463).

CSTI released draft guidelines for HHGE research, it

Apart from this discussion by Ishii, what needs tobecame clear that the SCJ’s and various Societies’ plea

be added is that following the approval to use humanfor a law would not be granted, and that, if anything isembryos in genome editing research in China and thedone at all, then that would be a revision of the existing

United Kingdom in 2015 and 2016 respectively, the Jap-

ministerial-level guidelines. Indeed, rather than making

anese community of scientists and other academics, ora higher-level policy recommendation, the report simply

more specifically the Science Council of Japan (SCJ)—

urged the two bureaucratic bodies with jurisdiction overan organization of over 2,200 members representing Ja-

this matter, namely the Ministry of Education, Culture,

pan’s academic community—issued a call to the gov-

Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Min-ernment to enact legislation. The SCJ stated in its call

istry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) to updatethat HHGE science is acceptable if the goal is to learn

their existing guidelines (CSTI 2018, 2019 & 2021). As

about the natural reproductive process (pursuing it forfor the content of the update, this also departed from the7

Silvia Croydon

CBEL Report Volume 6, Issue 2

SCJ recommendations in that approval for basic HHGE

This is because, firstly, he falls short of advocating

research was proposed, albeit in two separate stages, for

HHGE for reproductive therapy, arguing that the scienceboth—the acquisition of knowledge about embryogen-should be conducted only insofar as to open the “black

esis and for reproductive therapy—with so far only thebox” of conception, full stop. Secondly, he advocates forformer being acted upon jointly by the ministries

the criminalization of Japanese nationals who might in(MEXT & MHLW 2019).

the future go and seek HHGE abroad. In an effort to mo-Disapproving of both of these departures from its

tivate the politicians to enact a law in this area, Ishii sug-suggested policy, the SCJ felt compelled to issue in 2020

gests that the latter is necessary as a deterrent to Japa-

another set of recommendations (SCJ 2020). In it, it

nese patients who might want to flee for treatment

stated unambiguously that ‘basic research aimed at clin-abroad. “[I]n the era of cross-border reproductive med-

ical application should also be prohibited’ (Ibid., 7).

icine”, he seems to write in alarm, “some prospective

Three justifications that were offered in the way of ex-

parents might choose to go abroad to seek germline

plaining this stance were that: 1) the message might bemodification as the last-resort remedy for their infertil-sent ‘to the people presently living with disabilities or

ity problems, or to treat a genetic disease in their off-with intractable diseases that they should not have beenspring” (Ibid.: 465). To prevent this from happening, heborn’; 2) ‘a woman who accepts the pregnancy andargues, “[a] national law is needed, one with extraterri-childbirth could be [sic.] persuaded into not giving birth

torial reach”, because ministerial guidelines would not

to a child with a disease or disability’, with this ‘re-be enough to stop such patients (Ibid.: 465).

sult[ing] in an unacceptable endorsement of eugenics

Although this issue is tangential to the main one dis-and a pattern of thinking that is the same as in the oldcussed in this article, it is worth arguing that the criminal[coercive] eugenics’; and 3) the right to self-determina-

sanctions that Ishii has in mind in such a scenario would

tion of future generations would be violated (Ibid., 5-6).

be best directed at charlatan service providers and not

Despite this tone of the SCJ with regards to HHGE

the patients who act out of desperation. Indeed, condem-

research for reproduction, they clearly expected the sci-

nation of couples to domestic reproductive exile, which

ence to happen for the purpose of understanding embry-

a law that promises to penalize a national who returns

ogenesis. That this is the case could be gauged from afrom HHGE therapy on foreign soil is, would perhaps

chapter on Japan by Ishii, who served on both scholars’

be too much of a draconian measure to have.

committees, which was included in the above-mentioned 2020 volume Human Germline Genome Modifi-

4. A call for a bolder stance by Japanese scientists

cation and the Right to Science. To discuss again withand other academics

focus on Isshii, whilst his proposal for a reinvigoration

How many people in Japan share the knowledge,of the parliamentary debate is valid and goes some way

with Greely above, that there is no such a thing as “thein the direction of addressing the glaring absence of dis-human germline genome” that passes unaltered fromcussions on the subject, Ishii only goes half the distance.

generation to generation? And, how many people share8Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair

CBEL Report Volume 7, Issue 1

the knowledge that each of our genomes changes, as a

US—arguably the leading global scientific powerhouse,

result of what we do as well? And how many people re-the ban during the era of the Bush Administration on thealize that the proposed CRISPR-induced changes for re-use of federal funding for research using human embry-

productive therapy simply change the frequency withonic stem cells on all but a limited number of cell lines

which a particular, already common gene variant, isalready in existence led to many opportunities for devel-

seen in the population?

oping cures of intractable illnesses being lost, as scien-

Instead of urging reflection on such questions,tists had no choice but to choose alternative directions

whatever limited debate there exists in Japan on thisin which to spend their time and efforts. In Japan too,subject stops at the level of the dogmatic, unquestioning

the work involving the manipulation of embryonic stem

acceptance of the view that HHGE is a line that shouldcells that began at the turn of the century never took off,

never be crossed. This situation seems regrettable. Japan

precisely because the widely held public view of this as

has a lot to contribute technologically to the therapeutica taboo precluded the debate from deepening. Ulti-

HHGE project, and a societal debate here is a necessary

mately, in this jurisdiction, resources became focused on

precondition for science to happen. Society indeed has

using induced pluripotent stem cells, despite the appar-a key role to play in the development of such a technol-

ent short-term technical advantages, for the develop-

ogy, impacting the path that science takes. Feeding into

ment of therapeutics at least, of embryonic stem cells.

policy decisions as it does, societal debate potentiallyAs these examples suggest, HHGE science cannot

serves as a powerful factor in guiding science, and theprogress in an ethical emptiness. A vibrant public debate

two need to march hand in hand. There exist numerous

is needed to direct it. It is time that Japanese scientists

examples where this has hitherto been the case. Take,and other academics stepped up and fulfilled their rolefor example, the way society directed the developmentof enlightening the public.

of nuclear technology. If it were not for political and war
considerations in the US in the 1940s, the so-called

Acknowledgement

Manhattan Project would have never been launched to

Financial support for this research was received fromdevelop the nuclear bomb. True, nuclear technology

the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Projectmight well have developed independently of that ProjectNo. 20K01446 & Project No. 21KK0221).

at some later point in time. However, to say that thosescientists operated in a void, taking an initiative of their

References

own, would be a gross misrepresentation. To make theBaylis, F. (2019) Human Genome Editing: Our Future Be-

same point with an example where the reverse has hap-longs to All of Us. Issues in Science and Technology,

pened (i.e., the lack of social support for a technology

https://issues.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bay

making the associated science stagnate), it must be re-lis-Human-Genome-Editing-SP19-ISSUES-42-44.

membered what happened with human embryonic stem

pdf (accessed 5 March 2022).

cell research in the late 1990s and the 2000s. In the

Brokowski, C. (2018) Do CRISPR Germline Ethics

9

Silvia Croydon

CBEL Report Volume 6, Issue 2

Statements Cut It? CRISPR Journal 1(2): 115-25.

editing diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/human-genome-

doi: 10.1089/crispr.2017.0024.

editing-summit/2018-hong-kong/george-daley-ge-

Brokowski, C. and Adli, M. (2019) CRISPR Ethics: Moral
Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool.
Journal of Molecular Biology 431(1): 88-101. doi:
10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044.

nome-editing-pathways-to-translation/(accessed

June 15, 2021).
Daley, G., Lovell-Badge, R., and Steffann, J. 2019. Afterthe Storm–A Responsible Path for Genome Editing.

Cook-Deegan, R.M. (1994) The Gene Wars: Science, Pol-New England Journal of Medicine 380(10): 897-9.

itics, and the Human Genome. New York: W.W.

Daley, G. (2019) Interview with Dr. George Daley on the

Norton & Company.
Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI).

netic diseases. Audio Interview,(2018) Hito-hai no toriatsukai ni kansuru kihon-teki

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp190

kangae-kata: Minaoshi ni kan suru hōkoku (Dai 1-0504 (accessed 4 March 2022).

ji) [First Report on the revision of the ‘Basic Prin-

Daley, G. (2020) Introduction to the Special Issue of

ciples on the Handling of Human Embryos’],

CRISPR. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tyousakai/life/hitohai-

63(1): 1-12.

houkoku1.pdf (accessed 17 August 2023).
Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI).
(2019) Hito-hai no toriatsukai ni kansuru kihon-teki

Egli, D., Zuccaro, M. and Kosicki, M. (2017) Inter-homologue repair in fertilized human eggs? BioRxiv.
doi:10.1101/181255.

kangae-kata: Minaoshi ni kan suru Tasuku Fōsu

Getz, L.J. and Dellaire, G. (2019) Moratorium on Humanhōkokusho (Dai 2-ji) [Second Report by the Task

Genome Editing: Time to Get It Right. Hastings

Force on the revision of the ‘Basic Principles on theCenter, https://www.thehastingscenter.org/morato-

Handling of Human Embryos’],

rium-on-human-genome-editing-time-to-get-it-

https://www.mext.go.jp/kaigisiryo/2019/07/__icsFi

right/ (accessed 5 March 2022).

les/afieldfile/2019/07/01/1418576_011.pdf(accessed 17 August 2023).
Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI).
(2021) Hito-juseihai he no genomu henshū gijyutsu

Greely, H.T. (2017) Why the Panic Over ‘Designer Babies’
Is the Wrong Worry, LeapsMag leapsmag.com/much-ado-about-nothing-much-crispr-for-humanembryo-editing (accessed Oct. 2, 2020).

nado no riyo ni kan suru hōkoku (Dai 3-ji) [Third

Greely, H.T. (2019) CRISPR’d babies: human germline ge-

Report on the Use of Genome Editing Technology

nome editing in the ‘He Jiankui affair’. Journal ofin Human Embryos],Law and the Biosciences 6(1): 111–83.

https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/gaiyo/yusikisha/2021

doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz010.

1216/siryo4.pdf (accessed 17 August 2023).
Daley, G. (2018) Genome editing: Pathways to translation.
Second international summit on human genome

10

prospects for using genome editing to prevent ge-

Greely, H.T. (2021) CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater:
The Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in Japanin the Aftermath of the He Jiankui Affair

Gyngell, C., Bowman-Smart, H., Savulescu, J. (2019)
Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking
up from the Nuffield report. Journal of Medical
Ethics 45(8): 514-23. doi: 10.1136/medethics2018-105084.

CBEL Report Volume 7, Issue 1

Seimei Rinri 30(1): 4-14.
Kishi, N. (2004) Genomu Haiboku [A Defeat in the Genome Project]. Tokyo: Diamond.
Lander, E., Françoise, B., Zhang, F. et al. (2019) Adopt a
moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature

Hammerstein, A.L.V., Eggel, M. and Biller-Andorno, N.
(2019) Is selecting better than modifying? An in-

567: 165-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586019-00726-5.

vestigation of arguments against germline gene ed-

Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X. et al. (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-

iting as compared to preimplantation genetic diag-

mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zy-

nosis.

gotes.

BMC

Medical

Ethics20(83):

1-13.

doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0411-9.

Protein

&

Cell

6:

363–72.

doi:

10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5.

Harris, J. (2018a) Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be

Lovell-Badge, R. (2019) CRISPR babies: a view from the

Performed on Human Embryos? National Geo-

centre of the storm. Development 146 (3):graphic,

www.nationalgeographic.com/maga-zine/article/human-gene-editing-pro-con-opinions(accessed 5 June 2021).

dev175778. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.175778
Ma, H., Marti-Gutierrez, N., Park, S.W. et al. (2017) Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human em-

Harris, J. (2018b) Genome editing in humans could be-bryos. Nature 548: 413-9. doi:10.1038/nature23305.

come both ethical and prudent if properly regulated.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tech-

BioNews 978, www.bionews.org.uk/page_140192

nology & Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(accessed 21 June 2021).

(MEXT & MHLW). (2019) Hito-juseihai ni iden

Ishii, T. (2020) The Regulation of Human Germline Ge-

jōhō kaihen gijyutsu nado wo mochiiru kenkyū ninome Modification in Japan, 441—68. In: Boggio,

kan suru rinri shishin [Ethical Guidelines for Re-

A., Romano, C.P.R. and Almqvist, J. (eds.) Humansearch Using Gene-altering Technologies on Hu-

Germline Genome Modification and the Right to

man Fertilized Embryos]. Public Notice No.3,

Science: A Comparative Study of National Laws

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/000498321.pdf

and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University(accessed 17 August 2023).

Press.
Ito, Y. (2005) Science lessons. Nature 433: 107–8.
https://doi.org/10.1038/433107a.
Johnson, T. (2021) In Defense of Heritable Human Genome Editing. Trends in Biotechnology 39(3): 2189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.11.002

Nakazawa, E., Yamamoto, K., Akabayashi, A. et al. (2018)
Regulations on Genome Editing of Human Embryos in Japan: Our Moral Moratorium. Cambridge
Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27: 360-5. doi:
10.1017/S0963180117000743.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-

Kato, K. (2020) Governance of Human Genome Editingcine (NAS). (2017) Human Genome Editing: Sci-

and Role of Interdisciplinary Collaborations.

ence, Ethics and Governance. Washington, D.C.:

11

Silvia Croydon

CBEL Report Volume 6, Issue 2

The National Academies Press.

Wada, A. 1986. Automated high-speed DNA sequencing.

https://doi.org/10.17226/24623.

Nature 325, 771-2.

Niu, Y., Shen, B., Cui, Y. et al. (2014) Generation of gene-

Watanabe, D., Saito, Y., Tsuda, M. et al. (2020) Increased

modified cynomolgus monkey via Cas9/RNA-me-awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-ed-

diated gene targeting in one-cell embryos. Cell

iting technology: The impact of the Chinese twin

156(4): 836-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.027.

babies. PLoS ONE 15(9): 1-13. doi: 10.1371/jour-

Rasnich, R. (2020) Germline genome editing versus pre-nal.pone.0238128.

implantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in fa-

Welcome Sanger Institute. (2019) Genome editing in hu-

vour of germline interventions? Bioethics 34: 60-9.

mans: Call for global moratorium on clinical use of

doi: 10.1111/bioe.12635.

germline editing,

Sasaki, Y. (2019) A Japanese history of the Human Ge-

https://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/who-we-are/influ-

nome Project. Proceedings of the Japan Academy

encing-policy/genome-editing-humans-global-

Series B: Physical and Biological Sciences 95(8):moratorium/ (accessed 16 March 2022).

441-58. doi: 10.2183/pjab.95.031.

Wolinetz, C.D. and Collins, F.S. (2019) NIH supports call

Science Council of Japan (SCJ). (2017) Recommendation:

for moratorium on clinical uses of germline gene

Genome Editing Technology in Medical Sciences

editing. Nature 567: 175.

andJapan.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00814-6.

https://www.scj.go.jp/ja/////info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-

Yui, H., Muto, K., Yashiro, Y. et al. (2022) Comparison ofClinicalApplications

in

23-t251-1-en.pdf (accessed 17 August 2023).

the 2021 International Society for Stem Cell Re-

Science Council of Japan (SCJ). (2020) Recommendation:

search (ISSCR) guidelines for “laboratory-based

Ethical justification for the use of genome editing

human stem cell research, embryo research, and re-technology

reproduction,

lated research activities” and the corresponding

https://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-24-

Japanese regulations. Regenerative Therapy 21: 46-

t292-5e.pdf (accessed 17 August 2023).

51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reth.2022.05.002.

for

human

Steffann, J., Jouannet, P. and Bonnefont, P. et al. (2018)
Could Failure in Preimplantation Genetic Diagno-

Received 1 July 2023

sis Justify Editing the Human Embryo Genome?

Accepted 22 February 2024

Cell Stem Cell 22(4): 481-2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2018.01.004.
Thaldar, D. (2022) The Not-So-Sacred Human Genome:
What South Africans Think About Heritable Human Genome Editing.
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/12/02/human-genome-editing-south-africa/.

12

Published online 12 July 2024