Pro/Con: Should a Moratorium Be Imposed on Human Germline Editing?
By Sarah Glazer,
CQ Researcher [cites CGS' Marcy Darnovsky and Katie Hasson]
| 04. 26. 2019
Pro Argument
Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D. , Katie Hasson, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society; and Program Director on Genetic Justice, Center for Genetics and Society. Written for CQ Researcher, April 2019
The proposed five-year global moratorium on heritable genome editing is a minimal but welcome step. It affords the time necessary to engage in democratic decision-making about a powerful technology with the potential to harm the health of future generations, exacerbate social inequality, and create new divides between genetic haves and have-nots.
The prospect of heritable germline editing — producing future people with engineered genes and traits — was first discussed as a policy matter around the turn of the millennium. To date, every nation where legislators have debated the issue concluded that it should be banned. These prohibitions remain settled policy in dozens of countries, including most of Europe.
Recent technical developments do not change the underlying logic. We can and should encourage efforts toward safe, effective, affordable gene therapies to treat sick people — and we should forgo heritable genome editing because it would be unacceptably...
Related Articles
GeneWatch UK has prepared a briefing on the genetic modification of nature for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Congress in October 2025
The upcoming Congress claims to be “where the world comes together to set priorities and drive conservation and sustainable development action.” A major concern for those on the outside is that the Congress may advance plans to develop and encourage the use of synthetic biology in nature conservation. This could at first glance sound like...
By Aaron Ginn, The Washington Post | 09.12.2025
Earlier this year, I had dinner in D.C. with Jensen Huang, the president and chief executive of Nvidia. At one point, he said something that struck me: “Why is everyone here so negative?”
He wasn’t referring to the economy...
By Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times | 08.25.2025
Scientists have dreamed for centuries about using animal organs to treat ailing humans. In recent years, those efforts have begun to bear fruit: Researchers have begun transplanting the hearts and kidneys of genetically modified pigs into patients, with varying degrees...
The Center for Genetics and Society is delighted to recommend the current edition of GMWatch Review – Number 589. UK-based GMWatch, a long-standing ally, was founded in 1998 by Jonathan Matthews as an independent organization seeking to counter the enormous corporate political power and propaganda of the GMO industry and its supporters. Matthews and Claire Robinson are its directors and managing editors.
CGS works to ensure that social justice, equity, human rights, and democratic governance are front...
