CRISPR: Move Beyond Differences
By Charis Thompson,
Nature
| 06. 24. 2015
Untitled Document
This autumn, researchers and other experts will come together to discuss the scientific, ethical and policy issues associated with gene-editing research in humans. Plans for the international meeting were announced by the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine after a study was published in which researchers used a gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to modify the genomes of non-viable human embryos1.
Whether this meeting and others like it, planned in the United States, can help to forge a path for gene editing that takes into account all the relevant needs and concerns will depend on what efforts are made to integrate the diverse perspectives of people with different expertise and values. A first step to such integration is understanding how different perspectives arise.
One division in cares and concerns seems at times to fall along stereotypical gender lines. This was powerfully demonstrated during a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, last month on biotechnology and ethics. About 200 global thought leaders gathered at BEINGS 2015 to “reach consensus on the direction of biotechnology...
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
