Viewpoint: CRISPR technology poses genuine risks, but that doesn’t justify crushing regulations

a dbad c fa
UK scientists are using human genome editing, with a tool called CRISPR, to figure out what causes human embryos to stop developing. Image credit: New York Daily News

The advances made possible by CRISPR could bring vast benefits to society, but the technology also poses risks. An out-of-control gene drive could drastically alter or even threaten a species. And editing the human genome raises risks both for individuals and for society as a whole. To head off those dangers, governments and scientific institutions will have to respond by establishing standards that both enable promising research to go forward and reassure the public that the work is being conducted responsibly.

Experiments in both human genome editing and gene drives are generally classified as “dual use”—research whose results may be used for good or evil.

Although gene drives cannot be used to create new viruses or bacteria—neither type of pathogen reproduces sexually—they could be used to create other kinds of weapons. For example, mosquitoes could be modified to produce toxins or such that they can expand their natural habitat and so spread malaria, dengue fever, or other diseases outside tropical areas.

Indeed, virtually all biological research could plausibly be described as dual use.

This is one reason why all of those who value the lifesaving breakthroughs that biological research has made possible should reject the idea of regulating biological research primarily because it is dual use.

[T]he mere fact that something can be used to do harm must not suffice to trigger regulation.

Read full, original post: Keep CRISPR Safe

{{ 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-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-3.15.53-PM
Chiropractors may no longer be modern-day snake oil salesmen, but the benefits of their therapy are limited–at best
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-11_27_01-AM-2
AI likely to improve health care, research shows—but not for blacks and ethnic minorities
Screenshot-2026-05-20-at-5.11.17-PM
Viewpoint: No, sugar doesn’t ‘feed’ cancer — common cancer myths, debunked

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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