原文

"Broadly speaking, the conclusions of the Hinxton Group mirror and expand upon those reached by Baltimore et al. (Science, 348: 36-38 [2015]): that there needs to be public engagement in the issues and development of mechanisms for oversight; that the technical questions of safety and accuracy need to be addressed by further research; and that no clinical applications should be permitted until the technical, moral and governance issues have been resolved. Notably, however, the group did not reach a consensus either about the creation of embryos specifically for gene-editing research or about what clinical applications might ultimately prove to be permissible."

原文

"The advances in our ability to edit the human genome have made editing the human germline a possibility within the near future. This possibility brings with it the prospect of developing new ways of treating human diseases but also would have multi-generational effects and raise ethical and moral dilemmas that need discussion within society in general. The Hinxton Group gathered to discuss the problems associated with the prospect of editing human embryos and gametes and, where possible, to inform the much-needed public debate.

"One conclusion reached by the group was that human germline editing for reproductive purposes seemed premature at this time. Another conclusion, however, was that uses of genome editing in human embryos and gametes could provide an important new way of studying human embryonic development and gametogenesis (the mechanism of producing eggs and sperm) and lead to advances in our understanding of the development of our own species and how it all too often goes wrong. Such research, if governed and conducted appropriately, could provide new information for use in in vitro fertilization clinics, new treatments of infertility, improved understanding of embryo implantation failure and of the risks to the embryo during pregnancy.

"Perhaps most importantly the Hinxton Group, as they have in the past, encouraged all stakeholders, members of the lay public, lawmakers and scientists to engage in a debate of all of the issues involved such that appropriate regulatory bodies can act in the interests of society in general without impeding potentially important scientific research."