Editing fetal genomes is on the horizon − a medical anthropologist explains why ethical discussions with the target communities should happen sooner rather than later
By Julia Brown,
The Conversation
| 08. 16. 2024
With their primary goal to advance scientific knowledge, most scientists are not trained or incentivized to think through the societal implications of the technologies they are developing. Even in genomic medicine, which is geared toward benefiting future patients, time and funding pressures make real-time ethics oversight difficult.
In 2015, three years after scientists discovered how to permanently edit the human genome, U.S. scientists issued a statement to halt applications of germline genome editing, a controversial type of gene editing where the DNA changes also transfer to the patient’s future biological descendants.
The scientists’ statement called for “open discussion of the merits and risks” before experiments could begin. But these discussions did not happen.
By 2018, at least two babies had been born from germline editing with embryos that had been genetically modified in China. With no preemptive ethics or clear regulatory guidance, you get the occasional “cowboy scientist” who pushes the boundaries of experiments until they are told to stop.
After finding out about the babies, scientists continued to talk – but mostly among themselves...
Related Articles
By George Janes, BioNews | 01.12.2026
A heart attack patient has become the first person to be treated in a clinical trial of an experimental gene therapy, which aims to strengthen blood vessels after coronary bypass surgery.
Coronary artery bypass surgery is performed to treat...
By Staff, ScienceDaily | 01.05.2026
Scientists at UNSW Sydney have developed a new form of CRISPR technology that could make gene therapy safer while also resolving a decades-long debate about how genes are switched off. The research shows that small chemical markers attached to DNA
...
Following a long-standing CGS tradition, we present a selection of our favorite Biopolitical Times posts of the past year.
In 2025, we published up to four posts every month, written by 12 authors (staff, consultants and allies), some in collaboration and one simply credited to CGS.
These titles are presented in chronological order, except for three In Memoriam notices, which follow. Many more posts that are worth your time can be found in the archive. Scroll down and “VIEW...
By Jonathan Matthews, GMWatch | 12.11.2025
In our first article in this series, we investigated the dark PR tactics that have accompanied Colossal Bioscience’s de-extinction disinformation campaign, in which transgenic cloned grey wolves have been showcased to the world as resurrected dire wolves – a...