Congress debates blocking federal support for embryonic genome editing, introducing religious oversight

dn

The U.S. House of Representatives is wading into the debate over whether human embryos should be modified to introduce heritable changes. Its fiscal year 2016 spending bill for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would prohibit the agency from spending money to evaluate research or clinical applications for such products.

In an unusual twist, the bill—introduced on June 17—would also direct the FDA to create a committee that includes religious experts to review a forthcoming report from the US Institute of Medicine (IOM). The IOM’s analysis, which considers the ethics of creating embryos that have three genetic parents, was commissioned by the FDA.

Privately funded research on editing the human germline remains legal in the United States. But the pending House bill seeks to make it harder to test embryo editing in clinical trials. A provision in the legislation would prevent the FDA from using federal funds to evaluate or permit research that involves either viable embryos with heritable genetic modifications, or sperm or eggs that could be used to create such an embryo.

“This step seems dumb—or ill-advised,” says Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University in California. It might also be premature because the FDA has not shown any indication that it would approve such research. And such a ban would not apply to the type of research that the Chinese scientists performed, because the embryos they used were not viable.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: U.S. Congress Moves to Block Human Embryo Editing

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
Screenshot-2026-10-01-at-10.52.08-AM
Non-browning CRISPR gene-edited bananas move one step closer to British markets
Screenshot-2026-09-22-at-10.54.12-AM
‘They misunderstand science’: Research attempting to tie autism to changes in the gut microbiome comes under fire
AI-Force-Leadership-Portrait
Jay Clayton controversy: The divisive history of Trump’s newly-appointed AI czar
Screenshot-2026-09-28-at-11.26.17-AM
Viewpoint: Wellness movement activists reposition nicotine from a killer addictive drug into a cure-all for brain ills
Radioactive-Americana-Collage-2
The kooky logic behind the raft of spurious cancer claims from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health
strand of dna genetics
No, GMO foods do not “damage genes, natural disposition and hormones, or decrease physical health and intelligence”
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-11_21_39-AM
Viewpoint: Food cults: Online ‘nutrition communities’ can pose unique dangers
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-8.56.38-AM
Trump finalizes Medicare drug price cuts, drawing Big Pharma’s fury and a legal challenge
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-9.11.36-AM
The genetics of personality
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-11.12.24-AM
‘Why do we keep falling for this stuff?’ America’s love affair with snake oil salesmen and scams
Screenshot 2026-10-01 at 12.30
Combating ‘narrative distortion’: Will pharma companies step up to challenge health misinformation?
glp menu logo outlined

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