What’s the best way to put the brakes on current research?
Scientists and ethicists have called for a five-year moratorium on editing human genes that will pass on to future generations. Yes, society needs to figure out how to proceed – but is this the best way?
Experts have called for a moratorium on clinical research with CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing.
of the germline — that is changing heritable DNA in sperm, eggs or embryos to make genetically modified children.
CRISPR gene editing should learn from the Slow Food movement. Scientists must allow time for critical conversations and perfecting of techniques before rewriting the source code of humanity.
Gene editing a fertilized human embryo.
Scientists worldwide are calling for a moratorium on gene editing in germline cells. But what is a germline cell? How does it differ from other cells in our body? Why does it matter if we edit them?
Controversial gene editing should not proceed without citizen input and societal consensus.
A team in the U.S. is said to have safely and effectively altered human embryos. The news is a reminder that citizens must be consulted on developments potentially affecting the future of the species.
There’s still a way to go from editing single-cell embryos to a full-term ‘designer baby.’
The news may have come as a surprise, but it probably shouldn't have. A bioethics expert walks through how big a deal this announcement is – and what we should be considering now.
CRISPR uses segments of bacterial DNA that can make targeted cuts in a genome when paired with a specific guide protein.
Controversy over a Chinese study that used CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology shows how the West still looks at the East through the lens of Orientalism.
Eight cells in an embryo at three days.
ekem, Courtesy: RWJMS IVF Program/wikimedia
We're not quite there yet but there is already a potential blueprint for editing the human germline.
A snip here, but not a snip there?
DNA image via www.shutterstock.com
The International Summit on Human Gene Editing drew a distinction between editing an individual's body cells and editing germline cells that would pass changes to future generations. Does that make sense?
Gene editing allows us to eliminate any misspellings, introduce beneficial natural variants, or perhaps cut out or insert new genes.
Should the gathering of experts from around the world that's considering the scientific, ethical, and governance issues linked to research into gene editing ring alarm bells?
Genetic changes to embryos will not only affect the person that embryo becomes but also all their descendants.
While gene editing offers the exciting potential for disease therapies, using it on human embryos opens up a can of worms.
What the world is waiting for?
Since science made it possible to research manipulating the cells that are linked to reproduction, the naysayers have carried the day. But how solid are their objections really?