Gene Editing: How much justice delayed or denied?
By Nicholas G. Evans,
Impact Ethics
| 12. 02. 2015
The International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Global Discussion is a three-day event convened by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society, the United States (US) National Academy of Sciences, and US National Academy of Medicine. The Summit has a live webcast, a vibrant Twitter hashtag, and is being reported by major news organizations and blogs alike.
I want to pick up on one very small piece of this immense puzzle, highlighted by philosopher John Harris in the penultimate session of day one of the Summit (you can find his talk here). Harris, at the University of Manchester, highlighted three allegedly “obviously fallacious and dogmatic” arguments against the editing of the human genome:
- Arguments from the sacredness of the human genome;
- Arguments from the “unacceptable risks to future generations” as a result of human gene editing;
- The inability to get consent from children produced as a result of human gene editing.
I want to pick up the second of these, and concentrate solely on the question of editing the human genome in embryos, which is Harris’ main talking...
Related Articles
By Fyodor D. Urnov and Sadik H. Kassim, Nature | 04.21.2026
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a radical rethink of how scientists, physicians and manufacturers develop personalized genetic therapies. The regulator’s suggested introduction of a ‘plausible mechanism pathway’ should increase incentives for drug companies to develop...
By Miguel Muñoz, Cadena SER | 08.04.2026
"Para ellos, una familia numerosa no solo es una preferencia personal, sino que es una obligación. Creen que tener tantos hijos como sea posible es necesario para evitar un futuro apocalíptico", aseguraba Xavier Orri, periodista y cofundador de Página Internacional...
By Mary Hartnett, WFYI | 03.30.2026
"1907 Indiana Eugenics Law" via Wikimedia Commons | CC by-SA 4.0
Indiana was the first government in the world to pass a eugenic sterilization law. The state sterilized 2,500 people from 1907-to-1974. Indiana apologized for implementing the program...
By Sarah Elizabeth Richards, Scientific American | 04.02.2026
For the past two decades, fertility specialists have wrestled with a troubling question: Why do Black people have lower live birth rates after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment than white people?
Researchers have proposed several explanations, such as the fact...