[Letter to the Editor] Genetic Control
By Marcy Darnovsky,
The New Yorker
| 12. 14. 2015
Specter highlights exciting developments in the field of gene editing, but he is too quick to dismiss the shadow side. Writing that CRISPR “offers a new outlet for the inchoate fear of tinkering with the fundamentals of life” is an inadequate characterization of the risks involved. The piece describes a nightmare of Jennifer Doudna’s, in which she tutors Hitler about editing genes, but does not reference Eric Lander’s sober warning, in an article on heritable genome manipulation, in the New England Journal of Medicine. Specter does not mention that dozens of countries, including most with developed biotech sectors, have written prohibitions on heritable genetic manipulation into their laws, and into a binding international treaty. In distinguishing the public—and its advocates—from scientists, Specter might lead readers to erroneously believe that researchers are not deeply concerned. Nearly all scientists want a broad public debate about what kind of gene editing should be pursued. This is a potentially society-altering technology, and democratic engagement with its trajectory is crucial and pressing.
Marcy Darnovsky
Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society
Berkeley, Calif.
Related Articles
By Ryan Knutson and Jessica Mendoza, The Journal. | 03.27.2026
Genetically engineered babies are banned in the U.S. But that isn’t stopping Silicon Valley tech titans from trying to make one. In this final installment from The Journal’s investigation into the fringes of the fertility industry, WSJ’s Emily Glazer reports...
By Antonio Regalado, MIT Technology Review | 03.30.2026
After operating in secrecy for years, a startup company called R3 Bio, in Richmond, California, suddenly shared details about its work last week—saying it had raised money to create nonsentient monkey “organ sacks” as an alternative to animal testing.
In...
By David Jensen, The California Stem Cell Report | 03.26.2026
SACRAMENTO, Ca. -- California’s $12 billion stem cell and gene therapy program scored a historic first today, announcing that it had for the first time helped to finance a revolutionary treatment that will now be available to the general public...
Cathy Tie seems to be good at starting businesses but not so dedicated to maintaining them. CGS, like many others, first heard of her thanks to Caiwei Chen and Antonio Regalado in MIT Technology Review, May 2025, as the partner (perhaps bride) of the notorious Chinese scientist He Jiankui, described in the headline as “China’s Frankenstein.” He prefers “Chinese Darwin.” She ran his Twitter account for a while, contributing such gems as:
Get in luddite, we’re going gene editing...