Genetically modifying future children isn’t just wrong. It would harm all of us | Marcy Darnovsky

Genome editing for human embryos is an unnecessary threat to society. Why has the Nuffield Council of Bioethics endorsed it?

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has taken what it clearly regards as a brave new step: it has openly endorsed the use of genome editing to engineer the traits of future children and generations. The council’s report, Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues, asserts that such a move could be “morally permissible” under certain circumstances. In effect, it argues that the creation of genetically modified human beings should proceed after a few bioethics-lite boxes are checked off.

The report’s conclusion flies in the face of a widespread global agreement that heritable genetic modification should remain off-limits, a commitment reflected in the laws of many nations, a binding European treaty, several international declarations, and numerous public opinion surveys.

Unfortunately, a number of scientists and bioethicists, especially in the United States, have recently reached conclusions similar to the Nuffield council’s. But their reasoning has been quite different. Until now, proponents of heritable genetic modification have typically argued that if it is shown to be safe, it should be allowed only as a medical matter, only to prevent the births of children with serious genetic diseases, only if no alternatives are available, and certainly not for enhancement or cosmetic purposes.

The council’s report has now dispensed with those fig leaves. Its clarity about why it supports heritable genetic modification, and what’s at stake, may be its most important – though unintended – contribution to the controversy.

The report recognises that heritable genetic modification cannot be understood as medicine: there is no sick person in need of treatment or cure. It doesn’t try to justify heritable genetic modification as a way of preventing the transmission of serious genetic disease, it acknowledges that this can be accomplished with existing reproductive procedures such as the embryo screening technique known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

These points are usually raised as part of the case that existing prohibitions on heritable genetic modification should be maintained and strengthened. After all, if the medical justification is tenuous at best, and if the technology isn’t needed to allow carriers of seriously deleterious genetic variants to have genetically related and unaffected children, why would anyone consider an irreversible experiment in manipulating embryonic genes?

Then there is the societal perspective typically emphasised by opponents of heritable genetic modification: the deep concern that trying to define and enforce limits wouldn’t work; that the line between “therapy” and “enhancement” is too blurry and subjective to enact as policy; that we would soon find ourselves in a world in which parents pursued projects to improve their children at the one-cell stage. The Nuffield report admits that the classic distinction between “therapeutic” and “enhancement” uses of heritable genetic modification cannot be expected to hold, and it foresees that the technology could be harnessed to create “supersenses or superabilities” for genetically engineered offspring, and to satisfy parents’ “preferences” for children with “certain characteristics”.

Again, it seems strange for supporters of heritable genetic modification to raise the prospect of a world in which the affluent purchase genetic upgrades for their children, and to acknowledge that if widely adopted, this powerful technology could “produce or exacerbate social division, or marginalise or disadvantage groups in society”. In fact, avoiding that eventuality is one of two principles offered as a guide to the ethical use of heritable genome editing interventions.

This makes it all the more striking that the report, several years in the making and almost 200 pages long, barely considers the social, commercial and competitive dynamics that would powerfully promote such an outcome, or how they could be mitigated. Though it substantively addresses discrimination against people with disabilities, it has almost nothing to say about vulnerabilities to injustice due to racism, sexism, socioeconomic status and other forms of inequality. Instead, it pleads that it is “beyond the scope of this report to reflect the range of futures that contain the various possible genomic technologies (or none)”.

The bottom line is all too clear. Sadly, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has given its blessing to an unneeded and societally dangerous biotechnology, one that could be leveraged by privileged elites seeking purported genetic improvements to ensure that their children are treated as superior to the rest of us. Haven’t we been down the path of biologically defined hierarchies before? In a world plagued with obscene inequalities, in a time of resurgent racism, is this the road we want to travel?

There is still time to turn back. We can refuse to allow inequalities to be inscribed in our genomes. We can forgo a future in which class divisions harden into genetic castes. We can instead affirm the widespread rejection of heritable genetic modification, and reclaim biotechnology as an instrument for fostering solidarity and serving the common good.

• Marcy Darnovsky is executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society and co-editor, with Osagie K Obasogie, of Beyond Bioethics: Toward a New Biopolitics.


Marcy Darnovsky

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
How afraid of human cloning should we be? | Philip Ball
The creation of two monkeys brings the science of human cloning closer to reality. But that doesn’t mean it will happen, writes science writer Philip Ball

Philip Ball

25, Jan, 2018 @2:33 PM

Article image
Black history has much to reveal about our ancestors – and ourselves | Sada Mire
In pursuit of a peaceful society, it is important that we record all perspectives of our complex human story, says academic Sada Mire

Sada Mire

30, Oct, 2018 @6:00 AM

Article image
Barbra Streisand’s dog cloning is a modern tragedy. Pets are meant to die | Stuart Heritage
To own an animal is to learn about the inevitability of dying – not that loved ones can be replicated in a lab if we cough up enough cash, writes Guardian columnist Stuart Heritage

Stuart Heritage

02, Mar, 2018 @10:39 AM

Article image
Gene editing like Crispr is too important to be left to scientists alone | Natalie Kofler
The world’s first genetically edited twins are a year old. We should all have a say in how this tech is used, says molecular biologist Natalie Kofler

Natalie Kofler

22, Oct, 2019 @5:01 AM

Article image
DNA ancestry tests may look cheap. But your data is the price | Adam Rutherford
Do customers realise that genetic genealogy companies profit by amassing huge biological datasets, asks geneticist and author Adam Rutherford

Adam Rutherford

10, Aug, 2018 @4:59 AM

Article image
Behind this Nobel prize is a very human story: there’s a bit of Neanderthal in all of us | Rebecca Wragg Sykes
Svante Pääbo deserves his accolade – palaeogenetics is an expanding field that tells us who we are, says archaeologist Rebecca Wragg Sykes

Rebecca Wragg Sykes

10, Oct, 2022 @5:00 AM

Article image
20 years after the human genome was first sequenced, dangerous gene myths abound | Philip Ball
Misleading rhetoric has fuelled the belief that our genetic code is an ‘instruction book’ – but it’s far more interesting than that, says science writer Philip Ball

Philip Ball

09, Jun, 2021 @10:43 AM

Article image
Super-smart designer babies could be on offer soon. But is that ethical? | Philip Ball
Genetic selection for intelligence has hit the market – and regulation has a critical role, says science writer Philip Ball

Philip Ball

19, Nov, 2018 @11:30 AM

Article image
Your DNA is a valuable asset, so why give it to ancestry websites for free? | Laura Spinney
DNA testing companies are starting to profit from selling our data on to big pharma. Perhaps they should be paying us, says science writer Laura Spinney

Laura Spinney

16, Feb, 2020 @12:28 PM

Article image
Thanks to Cheddar Man, I feel more comfortable as a brown Briton | Aarathi Prasad
I grew up being told that a prerequisite for our national identity was white skin, says the biologist and author Aarathi Prasad

Aarathi Prasad

12, Feb, 2018 @8:00 AM