Scientists Disagree About the Ethics and Governance of Human Germline Editing
By Françoise Baylis and Marcy Darnovsky,
The Hastings Center
| 01. 17. 2019
Despite the appearance of agreement, scientists are not of the same mind about the ethics and governance of human germline editing. A careful review of public comments and published commentaries in top-tier science journals reveals marked differences in perspective. These divergences have significant implications for research practice and policy concerning heritable human genome editing.
The current chapter in the debate about the societal and political implications of human germline editing took off nearly four years ago, in response to a laboratory experiment in which researchers in China used CRISPR technology on nonviable human embryos. In March 2015, an article titled “Don’t Edit the Human Germline,” coauthored by scientists and others working on somatic cell genome editing and associated with the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, appeared in the “Comment” section of Nature. A week later, Science published a “Perspective” commentary coauthored by another group, most of them scientists convened by CRISPR codiscoverer Jennifer Doudna, under the title “A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline genetic modification.”
The first article described the “tenuous” therapeutic benefit, and the likely serious...
Related Articles
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...
By Ryan Cross, Endpoints News | 08.19.2025
Human eggs are incredibly rare cells. The ovary typically produces only 400 mature eggs across a woman’s life. But biologists in George Church’s lab at Harvard University — a group that’s never content with nature’s limits — just got a...
By Katherine Drabiak, Journal of Medical Ethics Forum | 08.07.2025
Adapted from Mitochondrial DNA at
National Human Genome Research Institute
Recently, media outlets around the world have been reporting on children born from pronuclear genome transfer (sometimes called “3-parent IVF,” “mitochondrial donation” or “mitochondrial replacement therapy”) at Newcastle Fertility Center...
By Nicky Hudson, The Conversation | 08.12.2025