Should We Genetically Modify Our Children?
By Jessica Cussins,
Kennedy School Review
| 12. 07. 2015
Now that we have the power to permanently alter humanity, should we?
This was the question at the heart of the International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington, D.C., last week, an event co-hosted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and of Medicine, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.’s Royal Society. For three days, hundreds of scientists, scholars, and public interest advocates (and thousands others online and at #GeneEditSummit) discussed the scientific, social, ethical, and legal considerations posed by the prospect of making alterations to the human genetic code.
The summit was set in motion with the advent of a new gene-editing technology known as CRISPR. The technique was discovered just three years ago, more than a decade after other gene-editing technologies. Unlike previous methods, CRISPR is cheap and easy to use, and caused an explosion in research and interest. The U.S. National Institute of Health invested more than $80 million in CRISPR in 2014, and nearly 600 papers about the new technique were published by the end of that year.
All of the potential...
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...