Comment on “Effects of Polygenic Gene Editing in Human Embryos”, Nature. Public. J. Phys. Lett. A 48-Year Old Paper

This would be something special. However, the authors also include an extensive discussion of the study’s limitations and challenges. The fear that polygenic gene editing could be used for eugenics looms large among them, and is, in part, why no country currently allows genome editing in a human embryo, even for single variants.

Thousands of genetic variations that are associated with human diseases are known by scientists. On their own, the vast majority of these variants have small effects. But taken together, the result can be substantial. An analysis on the effects of polygenic genome editing was published this week in Nature. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08300-4; 2025).

There is an obligation to develop technologies like HPE, in the long term. There are several Mildly deleterious mutations that can be found in the gene pool62. Some models suggest that the effect of this genetic load might only last for a few generations. The concept is controversial and the conclusions are debated. We have reason to give future generations the preconditions for a good life if we take seriously the idea of leaving future generations in a better state than the current generations. This includes access to clean water, unpolluted air, education and shelter, and may include the use of HPE to lower the genetic risk of disease.

The Importance of Human Right-Selfishment and Human Rights for the Implementation of the Human Homogeneous Epidemic Effect

Although collectivist considerations should inform the values of governments and the goals they pursue, it is also important that these goals do not override basic human rights, such as the right to autonomy. Basic human rights must be compatible with collectivist goals.

Collective welfarism is an ethical perspective. The goal of the drug should be to provide benefits to individuals and broader groups of individuals, according to this approach. It is important that HPE is implemented in a way that does not affect our communities and society. Further analysis is required of what constitutes flourishing societies.

There are no easy solutions to these problems, which is why it is vital that we start to consider the implications now while the prospect of HPE is still many years away.

It is possible to limit HPE to the protective all genes that are naturally found in the population. Some people today have resistance to polygenic diseases. The chance of an individual carrying ten protective all genes against AD is one per two billion, which means that there could be people alive with this combination. People who have genetic protection against a wide range of diseases are alive today. These already existing combinations of protective variants could be the targets of HPE. If a population is at highest risk of developing a polygenic disease the goal is to protect it similar to those with lowest genetic risk. This would promote genetic equity and make people more healthy than they are today with the use of HPE.

One approach could be to limit the use of HPE to cases in which there is a reliable relationship between a trait and positive effects on well-being51. The problem of which conception of well being to use is a challenge, for any welfarist approach to improvement.

It is currently possible to test embryos created through in vitro fertilization for their predisposition to non-disease traits. However, many jurisdictions only allow embryos to undergo genetic testing and screening to prevent a serious disease50. Nevertheless, when considering polygenic traits, the line between health and disease is blurred5. Is it a medical or non-medical application if HPE is used to reduce blood pressure? The same question arises regarding vaccines and other preventative interventions. In extreme cases, polygenic editing can be used to delay normal human ageing, significantly prolonging human life.