Technical milestone or designer baby obsession: Latest gene-editing advance reignites a familiar ethical debate

chjpdmf zs sci pbwfnzxmvd vic l zs ymdiylta l zsmtu nty otkwmtetaw hz uta a dzjyy euanbn
Credit: Rawpixel (Public Domain)

Scientists at Columbia University have used a precise gene-editing tool, base editing, to make changes in three disease-linked genes in early-stage human embryos. The goal wasn’t to create pregnancies, but to test the safety and limits of rewriting DNA at the very early stages of life.

The paper, not yet peer reviewed, sparked immediate controversy. Some researchers hailed it as a technical milestone that could one day prevent devastating inherited diseases before birth. Others warned it edges society closer to the prospect of “designer babies”—an idea bioethicists have argued is akin to modern eugenics.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

The debate is hardly hypothetical. The work has already attracted commercial interest. New York-based Nucleus Genomics, which screens in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos for serious genetic disorders, has also developed predictive models for complex traits such as intelligence. The company plans to sponsor future research by study leader Dieter Egli and team.

Critics worry that even experimental advances could fuel demand from wealthy patients while encouraging companies to develop and market embryo-editing technologies, despite unresolved ethical and safety concerns.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

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
Screenshot-2026-10-06-at-2.36.47-PM
Is organic farming really more sustainable? 100 recent studies say ‘no’
Screenshot-2026-09-22-at-10.54.12-AM
‘They misunderstand science’: Research attempting to tie autism to changes in the gut microbiome comes under fire
Radioactive-Americana-Collage-2
The kooky logic behind the raft of spurious cancer claims from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Supreme-Court-Amid-Climate-Crisis
Should fossil fuel companies be shielded from lawsuits over climate change damage? The Supreme Court takes up the question
Screenshot-2026-09-28-at-11.26.17-AM
Viewpoint: Wellness movement activists reposition nicotine from a killer addictive drug into a cure-all for brain ills
Screenshot-2026-09-22-at-12.26.15-PM
‘Forever chemical’ concerns: Separating hysteria from reasonable concern in the debate over PFAS danger
Screenshot 2025-09-17 at 12.41
Jump-starting global warming: Rising temperatures are driving up emissions from wildfires, fermenting wetlands, and melting permafrost
Childrens-Health-Defense-Press-Briefing
Court links patient’s death to anti-vaccine doctor promoted by Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense
Kind-People-Kind-Futures-Hands
Patches for sleep, weight, NAD+, energy, focus, periods. No evidence to support the latest social media wellness scams
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-11_21_39-AM
Viewpoint: Food cults: Online ‘nutrition communities’ can pose unique dangers
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-9.11.36-AM
The genetics of personality
glp menu logo outlined

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