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... see more
Related Articles
Image by Avopeas, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that it would be irresponsible to perform heritable human genome editing – that is, to engineer the genes and traits of future children – unless and until “there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.” But how would we know if that goal had been achieved?
The only way to determine this would be through a robust process of public deliberation. Professional scientists...
Several new opinion polls on human biotechnology issues have recently come to our attention and two of them are discussed here. As is all too typical of polling on these complex matters, it is not clear that respondents were aware of, or informed about, key background information that would shield them from drawing false conclusions, as discussed below. (For summaries of these and older opinion polls on topics related to heritable human genome editing and cloning or genetically modifying animals...
By Antonio Regalado, MIT Technology Review | 07.12.2022
A volunteer in New Zealand has become the first person to undergo DNA editing in order to lower their blood cholesterol, a step that may foreshadow wide use of the technology to prevent heart attacks.
The experiment, part of a...
By Carissa Wong, New Scientist | 07.01.2022
Photo by CDC on Unsplash
A new form of the genome-editing technique CRISPR could provide a more accurate way to edit mutations that cause genetic diseases. The approach, which was tested in fruit flies, fixes a genetic mutation on one...
