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 “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” allows scientists to both delete and add heritable genetic variants. Worried about Alzheimer’s? Ovarian cancer? Parkinson’s? Simply edit it out of your body, or that of your children’s children. Don’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, it’s “going to get to the point where it’s like you are doing the equivalent of cosmetic surgery.”

Real debate about this is emerging in the scientific community. In the past few weeks, there have been calls from an impressive array of scientists—including Church and a number of those involved in the discovery of CRISPR—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, “The human genome is not perfect… It’s ethically imperative to positively support this technology.” Earlier this year, the National Institutes of Health launched an initiative “to leverage genomics, informatics, and health information technology to accelerate biomedical discoveries.” 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 “national research cohort of about 1 million people, whose biological data, as well as environmental, lifestyle and behavioral information” 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 glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-30-2026-01_09_47-PM
Viewpoint: As MAHA blows up over Supreme Court ruling limiting glyphosate litigation, Trump offers toothless plan to reduce pesticides in food
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-23-2026-12_19_35-PM
Ideological red flag: Led by anti-vax doctor, Tennessee is now the U.S. epicenter selling potent ivermectin shown worthless to prevent or treat Covid
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-01_14_50-PM
Viewpoint: Disinformation grift: The wellness industry is a lucrative and mostly worthless marketplace of ‘balms, brews, and baloney’
Screenshot-2026-06-30-at-3.08.03-PM
From infrared sauna blankets to collagen gummies, here’s the top 10 social-media-promoted wellness shams
Screenshot-2026-06-30-at-10.43.50-AM
Viewpoint: Why are there no approved bioengineered insect-protected (Bt) apples?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-4-2026-09_39_03-AM
Transgender female athletes and Title IX: Separating ‘policy’ from ‘legality’
photodune farming tractor s
Viewpoint: Glyphosate may be hazardous, but it is not dangerous as used by farmers. Critics of the Supreme Court’s Roundup ruling garble hazard with risk
Screenshot-2026-06-30-at-2.06.25-PM
PEW study: The sick state of American health information
Screenshot-2026-06-17-at-12.31.01-PM
Viewpoint: The dangerous influence of ‘woke’ post-modernism in science
marijuana-pot-in-hand-nveri-st-xpm-t-abq-fkifeos-s-rws-cmpx-
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Legalized weed drives drug addiction, psychosis?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-30-2026-02_48_10-PM
Independent news review site launches free credibility and fact-vetted aggregation chatbot

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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