The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Washington, D.C., spent three days discussing the science, ethics and governance of a revolutionary genetic engineering technique called CRISPR – specifically its application to human beings.
This debate is timely, maybe overdue. In theory, we’ve had the ability to genetically engineer humans for decades. In practice, the methods haven’t been good enough. But CRISPR has changed the game completely.
Everyone in the field agrees on one thing: it is too soon to try this in people. Animals modified by CRISPR appear perfectly normal, but it’s early days. Yet, there is a real danger that IVF clinics will attempt to use it. In some countries, including the U.S., this would not be against the law.
Related on the SLP
So what should we do? The meeting is not the first call to action. In October, a UNESCO bioethics panel recommended a temporary ban on “engineering of the human germline, at least as long as the safety and efficacy of the procedures are not adequately proven”. Early this year, a few researchers went further, calling for a temporary ban even on basic research.
The impulse to ban is understandable, but would be counterproductive. Basic genetic research on human embryos already happens in many countries. Stopping scientists from using CRISPR would deny them access to the most powerful tool yet to do what they already do. The ethics of embryo research should always be up for debate, but the existence of CRISPR has not changed the terms.
Read full, original post: Why banning CRISPR gene editing would be unnecessarily cautious
