Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Should there be a ban on gene-edited babies?




The genes in mitochondria, which are the powerhouses in human cells, can cause fatal inherited disease. But replacing the bad genes may cause other health problems.
The genes in mitochondria, which are the powerhouses in human cells, can cause fatal inherited disease. But replacing the bad genes may cause other health problems.
/Getty Images/Science Photo Library

Listen to story

11:35
Download this story 5.0MB

An international group of scientists and ethicists last week called for a temporary global ban on making babies with edited genes.

Mainstream scientists generally oppose making babies with altered DNA now, citing safety and ethical issues that must be addressed first. Such genetic changes may be passed to future generations, unlike gene editing done in parts of the body not involved in reproduction.

Some scientists had called for a moratorium before the latest proposal, which carries no legal authority. It came from 18 researchers from seven countries who published a commentary in the journal Nature. They included prominent gene-editing experts Feng Zhang and David Liu of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The researchers want a temporary ban on research designed to produce a baby from sperm, eggs or embryos that bear altered DNA. Roughly 30 nations already prohibit making babies from such “germline” gene editing, the authors said. It’s essentially banned in the U.S.

This “will place major speed bumps in front of the most adventurous plans to re-engineer the human species,” they wrote. “But the risks of the alternative ... are much worse.”

The moratorium would allow time for discussion of technical, scientific, societal and ethical issues that must be considered, they said.

Among the proposals: Individual nations should pledge to block such research for a specific period, perhaps five years. After that, each country could decide on its own about what to allow, but only after taking steps like providing public notice, joining international discussions about the pros and cons, and determining whether its citizens support proceeding with such gene editing. The proposal does not cover gene-editing experiments that don’t involve trying to establish a pregnancy.

With files from the Associated Press

Guests:

Ben Hurlbut, bioethicist and associate professor at Arizona State University; his research focuses on the intersection of science and technology studies, bioethics and political theory  

Helen O’Neill, lecturer in reproductive and molecular genetics, and program director of reproductive science and women’s health, University College London; she tweets @DrHelenONeill