Viewpoint: Why CRISPR embryo editing is not ‘morally urgent’: No one has to have a child

[He Jiankui’s CRISPR babies] brought to the surface common misunderstandings — even among scientists and ethicists — that reproductive uses of this genome-modifying tool have therapeutic value, will treat people with genetic disorders, will save lives, and will eradicate disease. None of those are true.

…

Imagine an individual or couple at high risk for creating a child with a serious genetic disease. They have the following simplified range of options:

Create a genetically related child in the time-honored fashion who will be at high risk for the genetic disease.

Create a genetically related child using CRISPR who will be at very low risk for the genetic disease.

Create no genetically related child.

The existence of option C undermines the claim that rCRISPR applications are lifesaving or curative.

…

Individuals have a choice in the matter of creating children at high risk of genetic disease: They can choose option C. Here is a different way of seeing the point that rCRISPR is not morally urgent because it does not involve a child whose existence, or illness, is inevitable.

Read full, original post: Using CRISPR to edit eggs, sperm, or embryos does not save lives