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 Anna Collinson and Jo Adnitt, BBC | 08.18.2026
At least 30 children, most of them British, are feared to have been conceived by IVF treatment in northern Cyprus using the wrong sperm or egg donors.
In each case, the parents suspect they did not get the donors they...
What We Inherit by Sam Trejo and Daphne O. Martschenko; and Original Sin by Kathryn Paige Harden have a great deal in common, with substantial differences in style and emphasis. Both books attempt, in different ways, to show the reader just where current research into human genomics stands, where that might be going, and why the authors are interested. In short, the influence of genomic research on our societies is already large and seems likely to change them in ways...
By Dan Falk, Nautilus | 08.20.2026
The pseudoscience of eugenics, founded on the mistaken notion that nature envisions some “right” combination of genes, and that selective breeding can improve the human race, is making a comeback. While the heyday of eugenics was a century ago, the...
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross, MedPage Today | 08.18.2026
Few things evoke a greater sense of desperation than a parent seeking an experimental treatment for their child. That desperation can make even extraordinary risks seem worth taking. This dynamic has come into stark relief after Mei, a 6-year-old girl...