The Nuffield Council on Genome Editing: Part II

In part II of my post on the Nuffield report on genome editing, I will discuss the criteria that Nuffield suggests characterise a legitimate germline modification - or when exactly they say the genetic modification of a human embryo is a moral thing to do.

Advertisements

The Nuffield Council on Genome Editing: Part I

Last week, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics released its long awaited report on genome editing. The upshot is that in particular circumstances, it would be moral to modify human embryos genetically. Leading newspapers have welcomed this statement, but it seems that it deserves more careful discussion - click here for a two-part blog post!.

What do people think about genome editing? Part I

Questions about a recent survey by the Royal Society   In March 2018, the Royal Society of the UK published the results of a survey about genome editing that it had commissioned. Survey specialists had asked over 2,000 Brits about their views on potential uses of the technology, which is portrayed as a representative snapshot. … Continue reading What do people think about genome editing? Part I

Genome editing: The report by the American National Academies

The American National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report on genome editing ten days ago. Here's their brief presentation, and the document itself can be downloaded here. Here are some of the crucial points about the document. 1. What are the conclusions of the NAS report on genome editing? a. Somatic … Continue reading Genome editing: The report by the American National Academies

The Economist on ethics and reproductive technologies

The latest issue of the Economist addresses new developments in the biotech sector. The occasion is both the 20th anniversary of the cloned sheep Dolly as well as the recent report by the American National Academy of the Sciences on genome editing. The issue is opened with a one-page editorial called "Sex and science". Below … Continue reading The Economist on ethics and reproductive technologies