Taking a closer look at recent reporting on gene-edited embryos

Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the idea of heritable genome editing.

In March, Biopolitical Times covered the launch of serial entrepreneur Cathy Tie’s new embryo editing startup, after she was forced to abandon the first due to disagreements with her co-founder. Media coverage of Tie continued into May, when she was profiled in New York Magazine and The Guardian.

The Guardian article featured her participation in a debate hosted by the Hastings Center for Bioethics on the question “Should We Use Science to Edit Human Life?” Tie argued the “pro” side, making her case for proceeding with heritable genome editing now – while Harvard bioethicist Glenn Cohen also argued “pro.”  

In order to uncover any difference of opinion between the two proponents, Hastings Center president Vardit Ravitsky began the event with a “lightning round,” in which she posed increasingly permissive scenarios about potential uses of heritable genome editing, pushing to establish a point where one panelist or the other might draw a red line. The unfortunate effect was to give the false impression that “both sides” now agree that heritable genome editing should go forward. 

Two papers on base editing of human embryos

In early June, the New York Times broke a story about a preprint paper (not published or peer reviewed) reporting on research from Dieter Egli's lab at Columbia University using base editing to modify two genes in early embryos. The reporting focused on the preprint’s findings that base editing had not caused the widespread chromosomal damage seen when CRISPR gene editing has been applied to early human embryos. Mentioned, but less central, were the issues that persisted with this technique: the base-edited embryos still displayed off-target edits, unintended on-target effects, and mosaicism. The researchers also discovered new ways that gene editing can damage or prevent the development of early embryos.

The reporting that followed from Science, The Wall Street Journal, and Chemical & Engineering News placed more emphasis on these concerns, but a more pernicious narrative was already forming, exemplified by New Scientist’s headline:

Are we getting to the point where it's safe to gene-edit babies?

One company with a clear commercial interest in pushing this narrative is Nucleus Genomics, which gained notoriety with their recent ad campaign urging parents to use their polygenic screening service to “have a smarter baby.” The company’s Chief Clinical Officer, Nathan Treff, is a coauthor on the base editing paper, and Nucleus plans to fund the next phase of Egli’s research. 

Nucleus Genomics’ communications representative told the New York Times: 

"We see ourselves as a natural pathway for eventually bringing technologies like this into clinical care as part of a broader genetics platform — a full 'Genetic Optimization' stack." 

That quote, linked to the New York Times article, was paired with an announcement about the next phase of research and posted on Nucleus Genomics’ X account and Instagram the very next day. Having their role in the research – and their future plans for commercialization – validated in a respected news outlet was clearly seen by Nucleus as a big win. What prompted the New York Times to play along by publishing an article on a just-posted preprint paper that had not yet been through peer review? 

A few weeks later, Nature published Kathy Niakan’s research on base editing of human embryos. In these experiments, the aim was not to “correct” disease-associated genes, but to “knock out” a gene known to play a role in embryo development, in order to better understand the process. Niakan’s lab demonstrated that one gene (called NANOG) is essential to the early development of human embryos. Embryos with this gene disabled did not differentiate to grow body cells and therefore could never develop into a viable pregnancy. 

Despite the very different aims of the two research teams’ experiments, reporting lumped them together and pointed to this use of base editing to successfully disable an essential gene as additional proof that embryo editing might now be “safer.”

Public Opinion

Moving into July: Progress Educational Trust (PET), in partnership with the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), published results of an opinion poll which covered aspects of IVF, surrogacy, and embryo research – including gene editing. The polling was conducted in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy by the research firm Ipsos. 

Regarding gene editing of embryos, PET highlighted as a key finding that more respondents expressed support than opposition, and this held for all uses of embryo editing and across all four countries. (“Don’t know” was also a frequently selected response.)  

As presented in the full report (pdf), the question on embryo editing asked whether the respondent would support or oppose using gene editing in the following cases:

• In human embryos for scientific and medical research, to help understand or develop treatments for congenital disease. It was explained to respondents that in this scenario, the research embryos would never be used to establish a pregnancy in a human being.
• In human embryos that will be transferred to a human womb to establish pregnancy, to help eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition – such as cystic fibrosis – in the resulting child, where there may otherwise be a predisposition for that child to have the condition.
• In human embryos that will be transferred to a human womb to establish pregnancy, to help eliminate a common, medically manageable condition – such as asthma – in the resulting child. (emphasis in original)

Surveys, by necessity, simplify the issues being queried, but the wording used and the background information provided or left out can significantly influence the responses. The Ipsos survey questions on gene editing included only one sentence of background:

Genome editing technologies enable scientists to make changes to DNA by altering sections of DNA. 

That circular statement is a bit vague about what gene editing of embryos might entail. It also includes no information about potential risks or downsides, while suggesting that it might lead to new treatments or “help eliminate” hypothetical conditions – including asthma, which is not solely or even primarily genetic.

In their interpretation of the data, PET makes clear that support for heritable genome editing was exactly what they hoped to find. The authors state:  

It is heartening to see such substantial support for uses of genome editing in human embryos…

They conclude by arguing that more public conversation is needed in light of the public support they’ve uncovered for germline and heritable genome editing. 

An editorial in The Guardian responding to the report acknowledges the current policy consensus on prohibiting heritable genome editing, but claims:

A series of recent discoveries and a new poll suggest that scientists and the public believe gene-edited humans are likely – even desirable – in the near future.

Claiming erroneously that most policy prohibitions are based only on safety concerns, the editorial predicts that those concerns will soon be resolved and the bans will fall. It concludes that embryo editing, once allowed, would very likely go beyond narrowly defined uses for particular genetic conditions to include “darker” ones aimed at enhancement. 

Any discussion must make it clear that while regulation can limit these darker uses, it is unlikely to eliminate them entirely. Human germline editing should remain banned for the time being – that is clear on the grounds of safety alone. But that argument may not always hold, and we can’t rely on it forever. It’s time to have the conversation about what happens next.

Compare that to stem cell biologist Paul Knoepfler’s commentary at Stat, where he argued that a rolling 10-year moratorium is needed to address the range of safety and ethical risks posed by heritable genome editing, particularly in the context of Silicon Valley enthusiasm for “optimizing” reproduction.

Despite claims to the contrary, nothing about heritable human genome editing is inevitable. The decisions we make and actions we take together can shift what comes next.