GLP podcast: Why some deaf people oppose curing deafness; The dark side of embryo screening; Should states ban lab-grown meat?

v facts and fallacies cameron and liza default featured image outlined
Groundbreaking gene therapies for deafness are coming online, but they’re opposed by a surprising group of people—a subset of the deaf community. Embryo screening could spare future generations debilitating diseases, but this revolutionary technology may also have some serious downsides if we’re not careful. Several US states are trying to outlaw lab-grown meat. Is this move justified, or just another example of one industry using the law against another?

Podcast:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 258 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

Advances in gene therapy are now enabling physicians to treat, and maybe even cure, lifelong disabilities like deafness. But as these novel therapies enter the market, they’re making enemies in the very communities they’re designed to help. For example, some deaf people oppose a gene-editing procedure that could restore hearing in young children who would otherwise go through life in complete silence. Deafness isn’t a medical condition in need of treatment, they argue, but an identity that should be preserved and respected. How do we walk the fine ethical line between treating patients we can help and protecting the autonomy of people who say they don’t need medicine?

As our knowledge of genetics improves, scientists are beginning to screen embryos before they’re implanted in hopes of identifying the ones who may be susceptible to serious diseases later in life. The upside is unmistakable: parents could significantly increase their child’s odds of leading a healthy life before they’re even born. But embryo screening may carry serious ethical risks we’re not yet prepared to address. For instance, what do we do when parents want to use embryo screening to increase the chances that they will have a deaf child? Who’s to say such a desire is wrong? These questions illustrate the complex issues we have to tackle before this technology is fully deployed.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

A handful of states are considering legislation that would effectively outlaw lab-grown meat products. Such restrictions are sometimes justified on the grounds that growing meat in a lab, as opposed to harvesting it from slaughtered animals, could pose a public health risk. Critics of the proposed bans say they are little more than a handout to the agriculture industry, a disingenuous way to protect it from competition. Who has the upper hand in this debate?

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}
screenshot at  pm

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring drew attention to pesticides and their possible dangers to humans, birds, mammals and the ...
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.