Genetic Editing in Humans
bioethicssciencehealthtechnologylaw
Get to the Point
Tightly regulated human gene editing — including, eventually, heritable (germline) edits — should be allowed.
Summary
Proponents argue that human gene editing can alleviate severe disease, prevent transmission of some disorders, and be governed by stringent international standards. Opponents counter that germline editing remains unsafe and ethically fraught, with consent, equity, and abuse risks that current governance may not fully mitigate. The central tension is therapeutic promise versus irreversible, society-wide consequences.
Historical Context
After CRISPR’s rise in the 2010s, a 2018 germline experiment drew global condemnation and accelerated calls for guardrails. Since then, expert groups (WHO; International Commission; ISSCR) have issued frameworks and guidelines, while clinical successes have emerged in somatic editing, including the FDA’s 2023 approval of the first CRISPR-based therapy for sickle cell disease. Debate now focuses on whether — and when — any germline use could meet technical, ethical, and societal thresholds.
