Human gene editing is a social and political matter, not just a scientific one
By Marcy Darnovsky, The Guardian | 12. 04. 2015
An international summit on human gene editing drew hundreds of people to Washington DC for three days this week, with many more joining online. The meeting, which wrapped up on Thursday, was convened by the scientific academies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. Its central issue: whether or not powerful new molecular engineering techniques should be used to create genetically modified children.
The summit was not designed to produce consensus among the participants, a mix of scientists, academics, ethicists and others, but its organizing committee released a statement at the end of the deliberations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, its conclusion was inconclusive.
The statement asserts that germline gene editing for human reproduction — that is, genetically altering sperm, eggs, or embryos and initiating a pregnancy with them — has not been shown to be safe or effective, and that for now “it would be irresponsible to proceed.” Nor should any such effort be made, it says, until “there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.”
But the statement explicitly leaves the door unlocked and open:...
Related Articles
By Brian Love, Reuters | 09.12.2017
The right of lesbian couples and single women to have access to assisted reproduction was “a matter of social justice” and will likely be legislated next year, a French government minister has said.
The move would mark a significant extension...
By Antonio Regalado, MIT Tech Review | 09.19.2017
Stem cells can be coaxed to self-assemble into structures resembling human embryos.
Yue Shao had never seen anything quite like it.
Two years ago, Shao, a mechanical engineer with a flair for biology, was working with embryonic stem cells, the...
By Rob Stein, NPR [cites CGS' Marcy Darnovsky] | 09.20.2017
For the first time, scientists have edited the DNA in human embryos to make a fundamental discovery about the earliest days of human development.
By modifying a key gene in very early-stage embryos, the researchers demonstrated that a gene plays...
By Gina Moranto, Guest Contributor | 09.18.2017
Property in the Body: Feminist Perspectives, Second Edition, by Donna Dickenson, 202 pp.. Cambridge Bioethics and Law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Any new work from the eminent British scholar Donna Dickenson promises to bring important insights. This second edition of her important 2007 volume on the commodification of women’s bodies, Property in the Body, is no exception.
Ten years after the book’s initial publication, Dickenson sees that scholars and activists have scored some victories against capital’s incursions on...
