Is slippery slope argument against human embryo gene editing overblown?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. 

“It is up to society to decide what is acceptable: science will merely inform what may be possible.” This statement made by Kathy Niakan, a stem cell researcher at the newly opened Francis Crick Institute in London, seems eminently reasonable, but it raises as many questions as it allays.

Niakan has applied to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a licence to use a powerful new gene-editing technique on human embryos that would produce the first genetically modified embryos in the UK. Such a step is currently banned for federally funded research in the U.S.

If Niakan is permitted to proceed, the embryos – donated from IVF treatment and modified using a method called Crispr/Cas9, which makes it relatively straightforward to snip out genes and insert new ones – would legally have to be destroyed within 14 days. The work would explore the genetic roots of repeated miscarriage by examining the layer of cells in the embryo that develop into the placenta.

Niakan refutes suggestions that the work would set us on a slippery slope towards designer babies. She is absolutely right. Regulation is very clear and tight in the UK, even while being permissive by global standards. Indeed, it’s a willingness to confront and think through the issues that has made the HFEA an admired and trusted model for regulating embryo research.

Read full, original post: Scientists must be part of the ethical debate on human genetics

{{ 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

Screen Shot at AM
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Right-wing politics bad for your health? Separating speculation from science
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-13-2026-11_51_39-AM
Viewpoint: COVID lab leak? Misguided backers of the lab leak theory refuse to give up
drug look like ozempic
Six key health insights from taking weight-loss drugs
ChatGPT Image Jun 3, 2026, 03_54_37 PM
Viewpoint: “Turn on, tune in, drop out”—Kennedy embraces the Timothy Leary psychedelic revolution
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-14-2026-09_41_44-AM-2
Viewpoint—‘The gleeful efficiency of an arsonist’: Administration’s health and science research cuts are ‘sabotaging’ America’s future
Screenshot-2026-06-14-at-9.14.26-AM
‘Humanitarian catastrophe’: Trump’s USAID shutdown could help drive nearly 23 million deaths — including 5.4 million children — by 2030, Lancet study warns
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-11-2026-01_15_03-PM
Selective Pressure, Selective Silence
Screenshot-2026-06-14-at-9.53.54-AM
Is the World Cup a perfect storm for the spread of infectious diseases?
ChatGPT Image Jun 3, 2026, 03_14_43 PM
Viewpoint: How Earthjustice became the poster child for the abuse of special interest activist funding
ChatGPT Image Jun 12, 2026, 02_32_14 PM
‘Have you asked your doctor?’: AMA launches campaign to counter health misinformation
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
Screenshot-2026-06-11-at-3.40.06-PM
'Toxin' detox: A gastroenterologist weighs in on $71 billion health trend
glp menu logo outlined

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