Will gene editing human embryos ever be safe?

Debates continue about whether the societal risks of heritable genome editing are too great to proceed, as do calls for broadly inclusive public participation in such deliberations. In the meantime, we’ve been learning a lot about what can go wrong when using CRISPR to edit human embryos.

In October [2020], the journal Cell published an article describing significant damage to human embryos edited with CRISPR. The experiments conducted in Dieter Egli’s lab at Columbia University found unintended rearrangements or deletions of large stretches of DNA at and around the targeted site.

The idea that reducing technical errors in embryo editing experiments proves heritable genome editing safe continues to miss consideration of a broader set of problems. These include risks to any women who would carry gene-edited pregnancies, as well as risks to the health and well-being of any children born from edited embryos, and to any subsequent generations. Beyond these concerns lie urgent questions about the societal risks of altering the genes of future children and generations, which we have barely begun to discuss.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Safety is far from the only thing we need to discuss in making decisions about whether to pursue heritable genome editing, but recent scientific findings confirm that the question of whether it will ever be safe is far from settled.

Read the original post

{{ 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-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
Screenshot-2026-05-04-at-12.54.32-PM
How Utah became the country’s supplement capital  — and a haven for unregulated, ineffective and fake products
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
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
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
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
viva-la-vida-watermelons
Misinformation and climate change are endangering summer watermelons
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-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
glp menu logo outlined

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