Viewpoint: Why we need a 3-year moratorium on gene-edited babies

hi
Chinese scientist He Jiankui speaks at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong. Image credit: AFP

Chinese researcher He [Jiankui] dropped the bomb with his claim that he produced twin CRISPR’d babies. He cited a 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consensus report as one reason he felt it was alright for him to proceed with his efforts to do this.

I question He’s interpretation of that report, but in my view the experts issuing various reports left the door too open to this kind of work.

He’s announcement was likely timed to coincide with last week’s Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong.

…

As the Hong Kong meeting wrapped up, the organizers released a statement that did not explicitly call for a moratorium on making gene-edited babies.

…

Unlike the meeting organizers, I favor a low-risk, temporary, three-year moratorium on implantation of gene-edited human embryos to make genetically modified babies. A moratorium won’t stop the most driven rogue, and one can reasonably ask how it would be enforced. … Three years is enough time for both the science and societal discussions to advance without being a burden.

…

The scientific community needs to take a firmer and clearer stance that making genetically modified babies is prohibited for the time being. A temporary moratorium specifically on implantation of gene-edited human embryos would achieve that with minimal risk of over-regulating research and no impact on in vitro research.

Read full, original post: We need a temporary moratorium on using gene editing to create babies

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-Sep-10-2026-10_36_07-AM
Viewpoint: Even lousy scientific articles can shield authors when they hype dubious health claims and products
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-23-2026-02_36_39-PM
Viewpoint: After firing the entire National Science Board, Trump reshapes funding initiatives. Here’s the good and the bad.
generated-1790707585414
Facts & Fallacies podcast: America's health care system is broken. A doctor explains how to fix it
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-03_15_09-PM
Viewpoint: Chipotle-inspired lesson: 10,000 sick customers suggest that processed foods can be safer than fresh ones
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-11_54_00-AM
Viewpoint: Activist environmental NGOs are turning from public funding to activist billionaires to support their campaigns. It won’t end well.
Screenshot 2026-08-12 at 1.22
Activists vs. Scientists: Could “Butterfly Effect” fears derail gene-drive research targeting the flesh-eating screwworm?
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-22-2026-11_17_31-AM
The exploding controversy over AI’s built-in survival drive
sorghum farmers in kenya FARMERS TREND
Here are all the ways CRISPR gene editing is transforming Africa’s staple crops—and there’s a lot more innovation to come
Screenshot-2026-09-16-at-10.27.33-AM
Viewpoint: SCOTUS poised to address First Amendment tension between mandatory vaccines, children’s health and religious freedom 
glp menu logo outlined

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