With their primary goal to advance scientific knowledge, most scientists are not trained or incentivized to think through the societal implications of the technologies they are developing. Even in genomic medicine, which is geared toward benefiting future patients, time and funding pressures make . In 2015, three years after scientists discovered how to permanently edit the human genome, U.
S. scientists to halt applications of germline genome editing, a controversial type of gene editing where the DNA changes also transfer to the patient's future biological descendants. The scientists' statement called for "open discussion of the merits and risks" before experiments could begin.
But these discussions did not happen. By 2018, at least two babies had been born from with . With no preemptive ethics or clear regulatory guidance, you get the occasional "cowboy scientist" who pushes the boundaries of experiments until they are told to stop.
After finding out about the babies, . Then in 2020, an that brought together expert views resounded the same call for societal discussions about whether germline editing could be ethical. I'm a who studies the values and experiences driving prenatal developments, including genome editing.
Human prenatal genome editing has not happened yet—as far as we know. Prenatal genome editing isn't the same as editing , like the Chinese scientist did, because prenatal editing involves editing the DNA of a fetus visible inside a pregnant person's womb—wi.