Health, ethics, or money: What’s really driving CRISPR debate?

A momentous technological revolution is unfolding in our very real, no longer fictive ability to easily and cheaply alter the human germ line. A technological development called CRISPR, which stands for โ€œclustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,โ€ allows scientists to both delete and add heritable genetic variants. Worried about Alzheimerโ€™s? Ovarian cancer? Parkinsonโ€™s? Simply edit it out of your body, or that of your childrenโ€™s children. Donโ€™t like red hair? Short stature? Big nose? Ditto. Want strong bones? Resistance to heart disease? Oh, snap. The process is so simple and low-cost that, according to Harvard University geneticist George Church, itโ€™s โ€œgoing to get to the point where itโ€™s like you are doing the equivalent of cosmetic surgery.โ€

Real debate about this is emerging in the scientific community. In the past few weeks, there have been calls from an impressive array of scientistsโ€”including Church and a number of those involved in the discovery of CRISPRโ€”to slow down its use in humans. Some scientists have called only for a public conversation; others have called for a moratorium, arguing that the technology effectively allows non-consensual experimentation on future human generations.

But many more scientists see this technology as an irrefutably good thing. Says bioethicist John Harris, of Manchester University in the UK, โ€œThe human genome is not perfectโ€ฆ Itโ€™s ethically imperative to positively support this technology.โ€ Earlier this year, the National Institutes of Health launched an initiative โ€œto leverage genomics, informatics, and health information technology to accelerate biomedical discoveries.โ€ This week, NIH announced the panel overseeing the project. It includes representatives of corporations like Intel and Google, the Defense Department, and a healthy array of venture capitalists. The goal is to create a โ€œnational research cohort of about 1 million people, whose biological data, as well as environmental, lifestyle and behavioral informationโ€ is to be shared with researchers.

Read full, original article: Who’s Getting Rich Off Your Genes?

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

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosateโ€”the world's most heavily-used herbicideโ€”pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesnโ€™t change the scienceโ€”the worldโ€™s most popular herbicide is safeย 
Picture1
The FDA couldnโ€™t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
global warming
โ€˜Implausibleโ€™: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenarioโ€”soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
cousin
Marrying your cousin: Might it provide some evolutionary benefits?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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