2016 Fear vs Hope: Gene Editing— Terrible turning point?
By Pete Shanks,
Deccan Chronicle
| 01. 01. 2017
The next year may represent our best chance to prevent the rise of a modern, uncontrolled and dangerously ill-considered techno-eugenics.
If new “gene editing” tools can be used to treat people who are sick, that would be a hugely welcome development. But applying them to human reproduction could all too easily open the door to a world of genetic haves and have-nots. Will it be possible for the distinction between responsible and irresponsible applications of human genetic technologies to hold, in policy and in practice? There is hope, but the signals from 2016 are very worrying.
One year ago, the U.S. National Academies Summit on Human Gene Editing ended with a consensus statement that proceeding with inheritable (germline) gene editing would be “irresponsible” until both the science was proven and there was “broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.”
It didn’t take long for that to seem wildly optimistic. Even before that announcement, and in complete secrecy, a rogue American scientist had defied authorities by using Mexican facilities to create a baby for a Jordanian couple using...
Related Articles
By Jared Whitlock, Endpoints News | 10.09.2025
When Nirnay Murthy learned about a treatment for his toddler son’s rare condition, relief quickly gave way to disappointment.
A one-time gene therapy called Zolgensma from the Swiss drugmaker Novartis can halt spinal muscular atrophy, a deadly condition that causes...
By Meagan Parrish, PharmaVoice | 10.10.2025
When CEO Ben Lamm steps into the spotlight, it’s usually to talk about his efforts bringing extinct animals back to life. Once a far-flung idea, Lamm and the company he heads, Colossal Biosciences, have proven they can pull it off...
By Rob Stein, NPR | 09.30.2025
Scientists have created human eggs containing genes from adult skin cells, a step that someday could help women who are infertile or gay couples have babies with their own genes but would also raise difficult ethical, social and legal issues...
By Daniel Hildebrand, The Humanist | 10.01.2025
When most people hear the word eugenics, they think of dusty history textbooks and black-and-white photographs: forced sterilizations in the early 20th century, pseudoscientific charts measuring skulls, the language of “fitness” used to justify violence and exclusion. It feels like...