Splice of Life
By Editorial,
Nature
| 05. 06. 2015
The news last month that scientists had edited the genomes of human embryos induced a predictable sharp intake of breath (see Nature http://doi.org/3xt; 2015). The work is notable because it altered the germ line, meaning that in a viable embryo, the genetic changes would have been passed on to all future offspring. What should be society’s response to such research? How should the scientific community view other current and foreseeable experiments along similar lines, and what should it do about them?
Gene-editing tools have evolved to the point at which targeted changes to a genome can be made with unprecedented ease. In theory, gene editing allows specific genetic traits to be changed. The potential clinical applications, in which babies are engineered so that they no longer carry faulty, disease-causing genes that run in the family, might be attractive to many. But even such potentially legitimate clinical applications remain some way off. There are also longer-term ethical concerns that germline gene therapy might creep beyond eliminating deadly or debilitating heritable disorders to include disabilities, less serious conditions, and cosmetic and...
Related Articles
Since the “CRISPR babies” scandal in 2018, no additional genetically modified babies are known to have been born. Now several techno-enthusiastic billionaires are setting up privately funded companies to genetically edit human embryos, with the explicit intention of creating genetically modified children.
Heritable genome editing remains prohibited by policies in the overwhelming majority of countries that have any relevant policy, and by a binding European treaty. Support for keeping it legally off limits is widespread, including among scientists...
By Ed Cara, Gizmodo | 06.22.2025
In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined...
By Elise Kinsella, ABC News | 06.15.2025
When *Sarah and her partner needed fertility testing, it was Monash IVF that the pair turned to.
"Having a quick browse online, Monash IVF was one of the most prominent ones that came up on Google search and after contacting...
By Tory Shepherd, The Guardian | 06.13.2025
IVF is “big business” and experts are concerned about conflicts of interest between profit-making and helping families have children.
Monash IVF’s second embryo bungle has sparked renewed scrutiny on the IVF industry as a whole amid calls for national regulation...