Will CRISPR gene editing disrupt or perpetuate global health and medical social inequalities?

crispr

On [June 3 and 4], hundreds of scientists, industry folk, and public health officials from all over the world filled the amphitheater at the Boston World Trade Center to reckon with the power of biology’s favorite new DNA-tinkering tool: Crispr.

“In a time like this with ethnic nationalism sweeping Europe and Trump nationalism sweeping the US, not democratizing these kinds of technologies is a genuine threat to those of us who are minorities with less powerful in this society,” [said urban farmer Antonio Cosme].

Like any technology, the applications of gene editing tech will be shaped by the values of the societies that wield it. Which is why a conversation about equitable access to Crispr quickly becomes a conversation about redistributing some of the wealth and education that has been increasingly concentrated in smaller and smaller swaths of the population over the past three decades.

The fear is that Crispr won’t disrupt current inequalities, it’ll just perpetuate them.

“How do I talk about Crispr when people won’t have access to it, even when there are treatments available?” [Florcy Romero] asked the crowd. Crispr-based therapeutics are just beginning clinical trials in the US, but pricing a genetic cure is already challenging the pharma and insurance industries. The first gene therapies, which were approved last year, today cost upwards of $500,000.

Read full, original post: CRISPR fans fight for egalitarian access to gene editing

{{ 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-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
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
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
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-01_23_27-PM-2
Viewpoint: Will AI democratize personalized cancer treatment or fuel medical misinformation?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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