Gene editing regulations can’t be decided by scientists alone

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

An international summit on human gene editing drew hundreds of people to Washington, D.C., for three days, with many more joining online. The meeting, which wrapped up on Thursday, was convened by the scientific academies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. Its central issue: whether or not powerful new molecular engineering techniques should be used to create genetically modified children.

The summit was not designed to produce consensus among the participants, a mix of scientists, academics, ethicists and others, but its organizing committee released a statement at the end of the deliberations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, its conclusion was inconclusive.

Typically, discussions of new biomedical technologies that are organized by scientists focus on technical questions about safety and effectiveness. But when the matter at hand is a technology that may literally reshape human beings and human society, ethical and social considerations cannot be ignored. The organizers of the just-concluded summit made a real effort to include speakers, including myself, whose expertise lies in social, policy, or ethical arenas.

Unfortunately, many perspectives from outside the scientific community were not fully represented, especially those from the public interest sector. We did not hear, for example, from advocates for disability rights, racial justice, reproductive rights and justice, the LGBTQ community, environmental protection, labor, or children’s welfare. Also missing were religious and artistic voices.

Read full, original post: Human gene editing is a social and political matter, not just a scientific one

{{ 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-Jul-7-2026-01_57_55-PM
Viewpoint: Europe’s rejection of air conditioning is the poster child for misunderstanding how to mitigate the impact of climate change
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-1-2026-12_37_08-PM
Viewpoint: Trump poised to politicize all U.S.-supported science research
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-30-2026-10_27_31-AM
Viewpoint: Europe clears the way for gene-edited crops — but fear-driven restrictions still slow their full potential
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-1-2026-03_33_49-PM
‘Alternative’ cancer treatments that could kill you
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-7-2026-03_07_17-PM
Kennedy blocks preventive health care panel that reviews treatments for HIV, diabetes, and cancer from meeting — for fourth time
DtAieAIkCZy-uchn-oqg
Viewpoint: In the science misinformed grifter game plan, the organic-food-is-healthier myth might be the worst.
Screenshot-2026-07-08-at-11.25.14-AM
AI being mobilized to target misinformation about vaccines–on AI
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-8-2026-12_32_48-PM
Viewpoint: SCOTUS strikes a blow against junk science in Bayer glyphosate case. Will it deter mass tort litigators?
d a ca e c c beb x
Facts & Fallacies podcast: The 'woke' crusade against anthropology? Dr. Elizabeth Weiss
glp menu logo outlined

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