We need a temporary moratorium on using gene editing to create babies
By Paul Knoepfler,
STAT
| 12. 03. 2018
The rationales for human germline editing don’t make much sense to me. They consist of invoking rare or even hypothetical scenarios where CRISPR might serve some purpose that cannot be achieved by already proven and safe embryo screening methods such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
On a cold, drizzly night almost three years ago, I stood inside the nearly deserted Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., I was in town to attend the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing organized by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine. After a day of intense talks at the meeting, I had gone for a long walk and found myself looking up at Big Abe. A big question was on my mind: Would the organizers of the meeting call for a moratorium on using CRISPR to make gene-edited babies, as I hoped they would?
They didn’t.
When I learned of that decision, my feeling was that someone would report the creation of the first “CRISPR baby” within the next few years. That might happen even with a moratorium, but the odds had just increased substantially.
Since then, there have been similar meetings around the world about human germline gene editing — editing eggs, sperm, and embryos that are then used to make people — along with official reports from committees. None called for a...
Related Articles
Has a commentary in Nature shifted the landscape of the debate about editing the genomes of future children? Or will germline-editing proponents ignore calls for a pause from some of the biggest names in the field?
On March 13, an international group of high-profile scientists and scholars who have been active in global discussions of human gene editing—including a Nobel laureate, the former co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Barack Obama, a prominent...
Nature published a commentary on March 13th with the forthright title “Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing.”
It was signed by a remarkable group of scientists from seven countries led by Eric Lander, Françoise Baylis, Feng Zhang, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Paul Berg, with 13 other signatories of great distinction. Nature accompanied this with an Editorial, “Germline gene-editing research needs rules,” which applauded but did not entirely endorse the call for a moratorium, and two letters: Victor J. Dzau,...
By Karen Weintraub, Scientific American [cites CGS' Marcy Darnovsky] | 03.13.2019
A group of 18 prominent scientists—including some who helped develop CRISPR–Cas9, the current leading tool for gene editing—issued a call Wednesday for an international moratorium on gene edits to eggs, sperm or embryos, and for establishing a process to discuss...
By Rob Stein , National Public Radio [cites CGS' Marcy Darnovsky] | 03.13.2019
A group of prominent scientists and bioethicists is calling for a global moratorium on any new attempts to bring gene-edited babies into the world.
"We call for a global moratorium on all clinical uses of human germline editing — that...
