Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.It was perhaps inevitable that someone, somewhere would attempt to use the revolutionary gene-editing technique of “Crispr” to try to modify the DNA of a human embryo, and so take the first steps towards the utopia of ridding families of inherited diseases – or the dystopia of “designer babies” chosen for such attributes as beauty, intelligence or sporting prowess.
University researchers in China have attempted to modify the defective gene for a crippling blood disorder in 86 “non-viable” embryos, which had been discarded by an IVF clinic because they had been abnormally fertilised by two sperm instead of one.
Several eminent scientists familiar with Crispr have called for a moratorium on its use for modifying the human germline, the DNA of the eggs, sperm and embryo that is passed down the generations. They likened their call to the 1975 agreement at Asilomar in California which resulted in a code of practice for scientists working in the newly emerging science of recombinant DNA – genetic engineering.
Although such a moratorium can have only a limited impact in the globalised world of science, it would focus the minds of the few scientists who are too excited by the technology to see its potential drawbacks in the wrong hands. A moratorium on human germline modification for research purposes would at least give pause for thought.
However, this is not to say that the research on editing human genetic faults out of a family’s germline should be banned indefinitely. If it can be shown to be safe and there is a good medical reason for it, who could argue against ridding the threat of inherited disease from future generations?
The real ethical issue should centre on which genes to correct. Removing inherited illness ought to be the limit. “Cosmetic” applications may benefit a few individuals, but the price would be a two-tier human race.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments