Hank Greely over at The Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford Law School was one of the participants in the recent Napa meeting on approaches to human germline genetic modification. Hank was also one of the authors on the resulting position paper in Science with David Baltimore as first author (here). Now Hank, pictured below, […]
Hank Greely Human Germline Modification Post Read More »
We’ve all heard the human embryo editing rumors. There is a sense that human embryos have already been CRISPR’d. Rumors are rumors and they may mean not a whole lot, but there definitely is a huge buzz on this right now both in a positive sense and with concern. The excitement is over the power of
Rumors flying on human embryo editing papers Read More »
Should we be using the term ‘genetically modified human’ in discussions of heritable use of CRISPR in people? During the still ongoing discussions of genetic modification in the human germline and potentially in actual human beings in the future, an interesting, but difficult question has emerged: What words or names would be most appropriate for
Is ‘genetically modified human’ a loaded name? Read More »
Over at Practical Ethics they are calling for an almost Spock-like, emotion-free, and logical approach to the topic of heritable human genetic modification. Sounds good in principle, right? Well, unfortunately it fails in execution in their essay. The authors of “Editing the germline – a time for reason, not emotion” seem to include Chris Gyngell, Tom
Practical Plan for Managing Human Germline Genetic Modification CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology is a game changer on many levels both inside and soon outside the lab. There is a growing sense of urgency amongst biomedical scientists to take a proactive approach to current and future use of CRISPR technology in human germ cells and embryos.
Discussion of concerns over heritable human genetic modification has spiked in 2015. This dialogue is a good thing, but is it in a sense too late? Are genetically modified (GM) people a foregone conclusion? Rumors are swirling that upwards of four papers reporting production of GM human embryos are in various stages of review at high-profile
Genetic Modification of Humans Now Inevitable? Read More »
In a new perspectives piece in Science, Nobel Laureate David Baltimore and co-authors including Jennifer Doudna and George Church, chart a potential path forward for human germline engineering. See also accompanying Bioethics piece by Gretchen Vogel as well, “Embryo engineering alarm”. In the piece, entitled “A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene
David Baltimore, et al. path for human germline engineering Read More »
The field recently saw Lanphier, et al. in Nature calling for a moratorium on human germilne CRISPR genetic modification. A number of additional stakeholders are expected to be weighing in soon on the issue of human germline gene editing. For example, a Science paper from others in the gene editing community is anticipated soon and may well have somewhat different perspectives. I’ve been
Intensifying dialogue on human germline gene editing Read More »
One of the hottest topics in the biomedical world in 2015 is heritable human genetic modification including via germ cells. There is an unsettling sense that genetically modified human germ cells and eventually GMO human beings are likely coming even if science and society are not ready for it. There are a hodgepodge of laws against human
Proposed Moratorium on Genetic Modification of Human Germ Cells Read More »
I recently interviewed leading genomics scientist George Church on the ways that trends in genomics are changing our world. We also discussed the possibility of heritable human genetic modification. These days we more often call this “CRISPR babies.” His answers suggest that genomics and gene editing are poised to radically change our world. They could literally
George Church on Germline Human Genetic Modification Read More »