Human genome editing and moral leadership: findings of the WHO Expert Advisory Committee
By Peter Mills,
Nuffield Council on Bioethics
| 07. 14. 2021
Assistant Director Pete Mills gives his reaction to the much-anticipated reports of the World Health Organization's Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing
In 2019, the World Health Organization convened an Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. On Monday it published its findings in three reports: a position paper (summarising the findings), a set of recommendations and a framework for governance. These documents represent a significant contribution to the literature around genome editing that has emerged since about 2015, which includes a number of major reports and a steady stream of statements and position papers emanating from learned societies, professional bodies, national ethics committees and ad hoc groups. [1] The WHO report is both the latest of the ‘big reports’ and the last in the pipeline. For now.
The scope of the ‘big reports’ on human genome editing differs: the WHO covers laboratory research, medical uses and reproductive uses, or ‘somatic’, ‘germline’ and ‘heritable’ genome editing. The reports also have different emphases. The Nuffield Council has, naturally, been concerned with ethical, social and political matters. There was an implied division of labour between the International Commission (which reported in 2020) and the WHO Committee...
Related Articles
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...
By Ryan Cross, Endpoints News | 08.20.2026
China’s cheap, fast and quiet system for testing cutting-edge medicines is facing scrutiny after the deaths of three people in investigator-initiated trials.
The studies, also known as IITs, allow experimental cell and gene therapies to be tested without oversight from...