Why gene editing does not lead to eugenics

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

This summer brings the 50th anniversary of the full deciphering of the genetic code — the four-billion-year-old cipher by which DNA’s information is translated and expressed — and the centenary of the birth of Francis Crick, who both co-discovered the existence of that code and dominated the subsequent 13-year quest to understand it. Europe’s largest biomedical laboratory, named after him, opens this summer opposite St Pancras station.

Since Crick first showed a chart of the genetic code, on May 5, 1966 at the Royal Society in London, speculation began about the dangers of using this knowledge for the eugenic enhancement of human beings or for making biological weapons. The discovery of a precise gene-editing tool (known as CRISPR-Cas9) has revived that debate yet again, not least with the first application, by Kathy Niakan of the Crick institute, to use CRISPR experimentally on very early human embryos.

Yet in truth the threat of eugenics is fainter than ever, for three reasons. First, the essence of eugenics was compulsion: it was the state deciding who should be allowed to breed, or to survive, for the supposed good of the race. As long as we prevent coercion, we will not have eugenics. Our politics would have to change far more drastically than our science.

Read full, original post: Why eugenics won’t come back

{{ 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

Screenshot 2025-08-25 203032
Mazzenga’s 20-year old muscles: How a still-going-strong 92-year old sprinter wins every race she enters
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-1.44.09-PM
Viewpoint: Scientists have scrapped the worst-case climate scenario. Is that proof that climate change is a hoax, as Trump claims?
Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-3.33.44-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccine deniers are attacking a life-saving Vitamin K shot for newborns that isn’t even a vaccine
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-1.35.30-PM
Viewpoint: Social media and fake natural health propaganda fuel surge in use of mostly useless supplements
px extra strength tylenol and tylenol pm
Why ‘null-findings’ on Tylenol’s safety for pregnant women barely move the needle on countering misinformation
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-10.19.30-AM
‘Natural’ wellness supplements linked to liver injury
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-12_56_54-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccines' non-specific effects? The ‘shoddy’ Danish couple whose 'research’ inspires RFK, Jr.’s health delusion
Screen Shot at AM
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Right-wing politics bad for your health? Separating speculation from science
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-10-2026-12_57_24-PM
Viewpoint: Why gene-editing babies is moral and certain to happen
Credit: ACSH
Viewpoint: Who and what’s to blame for the surge in vaccine-preventable diseases?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
glp menu logo outlined

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