2016 Fear vs Hope: Gene Editing— Terrible turning point?
By Pete Shanks,
Deccan Chronicle
| 01. 01. 2017
The next year may represent our best chance to prevent the rise of a modern, uncontrolled and dangerously ill-considered techno-eugenics.
If new “gene editing” tools can be used to treat people who are sick, that would be a hugely welcome development. But applying them to human reproduction could all too easily open the door to a world of genetic haves and have-nots. Will it be possible for the distinction between responsible and irresponsible applications of human genetic technologies to hold, in policy and in practice? There is hope, but the signals from 2016 are very worrying.
One year ago, the U.S. National Academies Summit on Human Gene Editing ended with a consensus statement that proceeding with inheritable (germline) gene editing would be “irresponsible” until both the science was proven and there was “broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.”
It didn’t take long for that to seem wildly optimistic. Even before that announcement, and in complete secrecy, a rogue American scientist had defied authorities by using Mexican facilities to create a baby for a Jordanian couple using...
Related Articles
By Fyodor Urnov, Time | 08.12.2024
After a lifetime in the field of epigenetics, and nearly 20 years after my colleagues and I coined the term “genome editing,” I will be the first to admit that describing the “epigenome”—a marvelous biological process that guides...
By Joy Zhang, Progress Educational Trust | 08.12.2024
What do China's new ethical guidlines tell us about the country's changing attitude to human genome editing? Professor Joy Zhang reads between the lines...
Recently, China's National Science and Technology Ethics Committee introduced a new set of ethics guidelines on...
By Priyanka Runwal, Chemical and Engineering News | 08.05.2024
Saritee Sanodiya, 26, has spent countless days wondering if she’ll ever live a “normal” life. Growing up, Sanodiya often missed school, frequenting the hospital for sudden, life-threatening drops in her hemoglobin levels and excruciating pain in her joints. High fever...
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...