Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing Be Performed on Human Embryos?
By John Harris (Pro); Marcy Darnovsky (Con),
National Geographic
| 07. 15. 2016
Pro: Research on Gene Editing in Humans Must Continue
By John Harris
In February of this year, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in the United Kingdom approved a request by the Francis Crick Institute in London to modify human embryos using the new gene editing technique CRISPR-Cas9. This is the second time human embryos have been employed in such research, and the first time their use has been sanctioned by a national regulatory authority. The scientists at the Institute hope to cast light on early embryo development—work which may eventually lead to safer and more successful fertility treatments.
The embryos, provided by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization, will not be allowed to develop beyond seven days. But in theory—and eventually in practice—CRISPR could be used to modify disease-causing genes in embryos brought to term, removing the faulty script from the genetic code of that person’s future descendants as well. Proponents of such “human germline editing” argue that it could potentially decrease, or even eliminate, the incidence of many serious genetic diseases, reducing human suffering worldwide. Opponents say that modifying...
Related Articles
By Holly Baxter, The Independent | 08.19.2025
In rural Pennsylvania, I’m hiking through the forest with Simone and Malcom Collins and discussing the executive order they wrote for Donald Trump. Just outside their house — beyond the chicken coop, where they gather their eggs for homemade cakes...
By Jacob Bogage, The Washington Post | 09.03.2025
The conservative group behind the Project 2025 governing playbook for President Donald Trump’s second term is set to propose sweeping revisions to U.S. economic policy meant to encourage married heterosexual couples to have more children.
The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing...
By Dennis Sponer, BioSpace | 09.03.2025
Imagine telling a child with sickle cell disease that a cure exists—but it’s too expensive for their insurer to cover. That’s not a hypothetical. It’s the reality of gene therapy today: a revolutionary medical breakthrough caught in the bottleneck of...
By Tia Ghose, Live Science | 09.16.2025
Twenty-six years ago today, on Sept. 17, a teenager who had received an experimental gene therapy died. His death led to needed changes in the clinical trial process while also spurring skepticism that would ultimately stall the field of gene...