Church Teaching
All Churches are against the use of genetics to enhance (try to improve on) humans. However, they do accept that some forms of gene therapy may be appropriate to treat people who are ill.
Roman Catholic Church
The Catholic Church released a document in 2008 called 'Dignitas Personae'. In it, the Church makes clear its continuing belief that a human is sacred from conception, and no form of experimenting on embryos or use of embryonic stem cells is at all acceptable in any form. However, on the issue of Gene Therapy, it accepts that somatic cell gene therapy is in principle morally acceptable ('licit'), but germ line gene therapy is not (in its current form) because of the risks to future children.
Gene therapy commonly refers to techniques of genetic engineering applied to human beings for therapeutic purposes, that is to say, with the aim of curing genetically based diseases, although recently gene therapy has been attempted for diseases which are not inherited, for cancer in particular.
In theory, it is possible to use gene therapy on two levels: somatic cell gene therapy and germ line cell therapy. Somatic cell gene therapy seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is, cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves procedures aimed at certain individual cells with effects that are limited to a single person. Germ line cell therapy aims instead at correcting genetic defects present in germ line cells with the purpose of transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of the individual. Such methods of gene therapy, whether somatic or germ line cell therapy, can be undertaken on a fetus before his or her birth as gene therapy in the uterus or after birth on a child or adult.
Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit. Such actions seek to restore the normal genetic configuration of the patient or to counter damage caused by genetic anomalies or those related to other pathologies. Given that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required.
The moral evaluation of germ line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential offspring. Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny. In the hypothesis of gene therapy on the embryo, it needs to be added that this only takes place in the context of in vitro fertilization and thus runs up against all the ethical objections to such procedures. For these reasons, therefore, it must be stated that, in its current state, germ line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit.
Church of England
The Church of England accepts somatic cell gene therapy, saying there are 'few ethical concerns' with it. They are less enthusiastic about germ line gene therapy, which is illegal at present in the UK (2011). In Genetics - a background paper (2002) they say:
Somatic gene therapy
This involves the correction of gene defects in patients' own somatic cells, ie ordinary body cells. The strategy involves gene replacement, gene correction or gene augmentation, the genes being introduced via DNA-carrying agents such as retroviral vectors (DNA-producing RNA which act against the disease in question by changing the DNA in the cell). The aim, then, is to modify a particular cell population and so rectify a particular disease in a particular patient. Success remains elusive for this form of therapy though trials continue. There has been one possible breakthrough, in reversing immune system failure in some babies in France, and most recently in this country. The results are very encouraging, but so far show only a short term effect.
There are few ethical concerns with such treatment. Its aim is uncontroversial: the alleviation of disease rather than the improvement of the human species. It seeks to treat only the single patient and has no effect on his or her future offspring. The danger may be that it is the start of a slippery slope and opens the way to germ line therapy and attempts pre-emptively to improve individuals. There is also a small risk that such treatment could spread to the gonads thus affecting the germ line cells as well.
Germ line therapy
This involves "correcting" a gene in the germ line (the cells that become gametes or sperm/eggs and early embryos) so that when the modified individual reproduces, offspring will inherit the "normal" gene. It would most easily be attempted by manipulating the early embryo. Any attempt to "treat" an early embryo, so that the individual it will become is not affected by the disease, is at risk of incidentally producing genetic modification of the germ cell line. This sort of therapy is illegal to perform on humans (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990). Animal experiments have shown that the method is associated with some risk, since gene expression may occur in inappropriate tissues. Any damage to the DNA caused by this procedure will stay in the germ line and be passed on to subsequent generations. Such therapy holds out hope for some genetic conditions which may only be amenable to treatment in this way, for example brain cells in hereditary central nervous system disorders, which are not open to genetic repair after birth. It would also dispense with the need to repeat somatic cell gene therapy in future generations of a family with a genetic disorder. The gene can be eliminated from the population (eugenics) and hence improve the efficiency of gene therapy.
This kind of gene therapy necessitates IVF treatment, as the treatment can only be given to sperm/eggs/embryos. Since IVF has to be undertaken anyway, the simplest solution would not be gene therapy but simply to destroy the embryos with the genetic abnormality, which is lawful, unlike germ line therapy. There would then not be a person with the faulty gene to reproduce at all.
