Genetically engineered humans: How do we decide when it’s ethical to create them?

3-21-2019 week human embryo x
Image: Bio Edge

Bioethicist Matthew Liao is open to genetic engineering in theory, but he says he was rather horrified to learn that twin girls had been born in China after a researcher genetically modified their embryos to resist HIV infection.

“My first reaction was, ‘This is really bad,’” recalls Liao.

Still, under the right circumstances, Liao, who served for two years on the Hinxton Group, which facilitates collaboration on stem cell research, believes genetic engineering can be used in an ethical way. And, in a paper in Bioethics, he puts forth a human rights-based approach to assessing which circumstances are right.

Liao introduces those principles with four “claims” on the ethics of genetic engineering:

Claim 1: it is not permissible to deliberately create an offspring that will not have all the fundamental capacities;

Claim 2: if such an offspring has already been created, it is permissible to bring that offspring to term;

Claim 3: it is not permissible to eliminate some fundamental capacity from an existing offspring; and

Claim 4: if it is possible to correct some lack of fundamental capacity—without undue burdens on parents or society—it may be impermissible not to do so.

Read full, original post: Is it ethical to genetically engineer people?

{{ 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-2026-05-01-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
79d03212-2508-45d0-b427-8e9743ff6432
Viewpoint: The Casey Means hustle—Wellness woo opportunism dressed up as medical wisdom
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-30-2026-12_21_05-PM-2
The tech billionaires behind the immortality movement
Screenshot-PM-24
Viewpoint: The herbicide glyphosate isn’t perfect. Banning it would be far worse.
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
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
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
Drinking lots of water can help reduce the effects of aging
Nanoplastics in drinking water: MAHA activists forge science-based bipartisan coalition 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-3-2026-01_17_14-PM
MAHA wellness influencers deride proven anxiety medications, tout lifestyle fixes
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
glp menu logo outlined

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