As genetic engineering and DNA manipulation tools like CRISPR continue to advance, the distinction between what science ‘could’ and ‘should’ do becomes murkier.
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
Articles on Human genome editing
Displaying all articles
Potential benefits of human genome editing include new ways to diagnose, treat and prevent genetic disorders. But there’s a significant gap in regulation.
We could start making our genomes equipped to deal with more frequent pandemics. But it may come at a cost.
Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier have been awarded the Nobel prize in Chemistry for their revolutionary work on ‘gene scissors’ that can edit DNA.
Four months ago a researcher claimed he had used the tool CRISPR to edit the genomes of twin girls. Now prominent researchers and ethicists are calling for a temporary halt to this sort of work.
Genome editing technology has, and will always have, limits. Limits that are related not to the technology itself but to the intrinsic complexity of the human genome.
A Chinese scientist has revealed he edited the DNA of twin girls born through in vitro fertilization. These girls are designed to be resistant to HIV. Is the edit a medical necessity or an enhancement?
Top contributors
-
Associate professor, Queensland University of Technology
-
Merlin Crossley is a Friend of The Conversation.
Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic and Professor of Molecular Biology, UNSW Sydney
-
Professor of Responsible Innovation, Arizona State University
-
Geneticist and Group Leader, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University
-
Professor of Sociology, University of California San Diego
-
Researcher, Lecturer, Attorney, University of KwaZulu-Natal
-
PhD Candidate at Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, UCL
