Human germline editing debate needs public discourse more than moratorium

Three high-profile scientific statements published in quick succession called for various kinds of moratoria on research on and/or use of gene-editing techniques that would result in genetically modified humans. The statements were prompted by reports that human sperm, eggs or embryos have already been created using such techniques in China and the US, and that papers are forthcoming.

These calls from within the scientific community are important, and highlight scientists’ desires not to have their discoveries used for means they condemn. But even among this limited group of scientists, there isn’t a clear consensus about what an appropriate solution looks like. The statement in Nature argues that in vitro research should be part of a moratorium because there is unlikely to ever be a justifiable therapeutic application that warrants the associated risks, while the statement in Science calls for extensive in vitro research to explore possible clinical applications straight away.

Jennifer Doudna, lead author of the Science statement and one of the pioneers of the CRISPR/Cas9 system, gave a lecture at UC Berkeley in which she raved about how popular the technique has become in the past couple years. She expressed her desire to spread the technology even more widely, beginning with a campus workshop this summer to teach students how to use it themselves. It’s not clear, however, if Doudna’s vision for a free and open CRISPR future will pan out given the heated patent fights already stirring up.

Related on the SLP

Ethical and science conundrum: Did reporters, scientists miss nuances of embryo gene-editing story? CRISPR revolution: How scientists are turning gene-editing hype into food and medical breakthroughs

RFK Jr. blames RSV on a chimpanzee lab leak: Dissecting false claims about the respiratory virus’s origins

Solar engineering to cool the planet might well work. Could it touch off a geoengineering arms race?

‘Warp-speeding this treatment’: Trump’s VA readies psychedelic therapy for up to 2 million veterans

In reality, scientists have the most to gain from the development of these technologies (whether for good or for ill), and for this reason alone are probably not the right people to be guiding international policy. Writing in The Guardian, science, technology and society policy scholars Sheila Jasanoff, J. Benjamin Hurlbut, and Krishanu Saha make a strong case that “Human genetic engineering demands more than a moratorium.”

Read full, original article: Calling for “More than a Moratorium” on Human Germline Modification