Editing humanity: Genetic science creates thrilling opportunities – and risks, too

It was perhaps inevitable that someone, somewhere would attempt to use the revolutionary gene-editing technique of “Crispr” to try to modify the DNA of a human embryo, and so take the first steps towards the utopia of ridding families of inherited diseases – or the dystopia of “designer babies” chosen for such attributes as beauty, intelligence or sporting prowess.

University researchers in China have attempted to modify the defective gene for a crippling blood disorder in 86 “non-viable” embryos, which had been discarded by an IVF clinic because they had been abnormally fertilised by two sperm instead of one.

Several eminent scientists familiar with Crispr have called for a moratorium on its use for modifying the human germline, the DNA of the eggs, sperm and embryo that is passed down the generations. They likened their call to the 1975 agreement at Asilomar in California which resulted in a code of practice for scientists working in the newly emerging science of recombinant DNA – genetic engineering.

Although such a moratorium can have only a limited impact in the globalised world of science, it would focus the minds of the few scientists who are too excited by the technology to see its potential drawbacks in the wrong hands. A moratorium on human germline modification for research purposes would at least give pause for thought.

However, this is not to say that the research on editing human genetic faults out of a family’s germline should be banned indefinitely. If it can be shown to be safe and there is a good medical reason for it, who could argue against ridding the threat of inherited disease from future generations?

The real ethical issue should centre on which genes to correct. Removing inherited illness ought to be the limit. “Cosmetic” applications may benefit a few individuals, but the price would be a two-tier human race.