Viewpoint: Ethical arguments against gene-edited embryos will crumble as technology advances

rsz baby e

[Editor’s note: Michael White is a genetics professor at Washington University in St. Louis.]

[S]cientists have developed an easy way to edit the DNA of human embryos. For a long time, such experiments were, as one recent overview put it, “a no-fly zone among molecular biologists,” prohibited by scientific societies, university policies, and government regulations.

[W]ithin a few years, gene editing technology will become safe enough for doctors to correct a mutation for cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease in a human embryo, and from that embryo produce a healthy child who won’t have to worry about passing on a devastating disease to her children.

By that point, advances in the technology will have almost certainly outpaced any ethical debate over how to use it. Questions about what kinds of genetic edits should be allowed, whether it’s even right to make a genetically modified child who had no say in the matter, and who gets access to this technology will give in to the relentless pressure of technological progress.

[A]s with genetic engineering, it’s become too late to ask whether or not we should edit the human germline; we can now only ask how the experiments will proceed.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: As technology gets better, ethical prohibitions on genetically modifying human embryos are getting weaker

{{ 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-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
Screenshot-2026-05-04-at-12.54.32-PM
How Utah became the country’s supplement capital  — and a haven for unregulated, ineffective and fake products
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-11.56.24-AM
‘Science moves forward when people are willing to think differently’: Memories of DNA maverick Craig Venter
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
Screenshot-PM-24
Viewpoint: The herbicide glyphosate isn’t perfect. Banning it would be far worse.
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-02_20_13-PM
How RFK, Jr.’s false vaccine claims are holding up $600 million to fight diseases in poor countries
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-27-2026-11_27_05-AM
The myths of “process”: What science says about the “dangers’ of synthetic products and ultra-processed foods
viva-la-vida-watermelons
Misinformation and climate change are endangering summer watermelons
glp menu logo outlined

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