Why is designing babies bad

And it was the view of a landmark report that the same group published in He acted in contravention of his own stated ethical views. To avoid such deaths, and the chilling effect that they can have on research, He urged scientists to move cautiously before editing the genome of embryos. The paper was in the works well before the news of the babies broke, and was published two days afterward. He sought ethical advice and ignored it. The elder Hurlbut spent time telling He about opposition to the instrumental use of human embryos in the United States, and the grounds for believing that human life begins at conception.

Both Nana and Lulu will be monitored at least until they turn If they remain HIV-negative, there is no way to show it has anything to do with the editing. At the Hong Kong summit, He was asked whether the two children would be treated differently by their parents, who will know that they have been edited.

If He shows any contrition about how these events have unfolded, it has not been obvious. That, He said, took away from the community. Scientific academies have prevaricated. By contrast, after the news first broke, the organizing committee of the Hong Kong summit, which includes representatives from scientific academies in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the United States, released a bland statement in which it simply restated the conclusions from its earlier report.

Read: A reckless and needless use of gene editing on human embryos. But the second statement still discusses the creation of more gene-edited babies as a goal that should be worked toward.

The unfortunate effect of this is that it makes it seem like there is some kind of balance, and George is just in the middle. There is not. Arguing otherwise gives a pass to scientists who blow past ethical norms, provided that they find something interesting. Last year, the world learned that a group of scientists had resurrected a virus called horsepox. Several researchers and ethicists criticized that work, arguing that it would make it easier for others to recreate the related and far more dangerous smallpox virus.

Most countries have regulations in place preventing babies being born after gene-editing, but the incident led to calls for strong international consensus. Gene-editing could potentially help avoid a range of heritable diseases by deleting or changing troublesome coding in embryos.

But experts worry that modifying the genome of an embryo could cause unintended harm, not only to the individual but also future generations that inherit these same changes. While effective in the lab, the process is less than perfect and can cut out too much DNA. These unwanted edits could alter other important genes - inadvertently triggering cancer, for example.

But arguably, the most controversial aspect of gene-editing concerns the potential to introduce changes to the germline - DNA alterations that would pass down the generations. Sarah Norcross, at Progress Educational Trust, said while important lessons needed to be learnt from the world's first genome-edited babies, the report went too far in the other direction.

She said: "The criteria the report sets out, for the first acceptable clinical use of germline genome editing in humans, are far too narrow.

Hopefully, doctors won't insert CRISPR-edited embryos into wombs until the risks are better understood -- but even then, the dangers will not be fully known until these gene-edited children are created. Extensive studies will have to be conducted over the course of their lifetimes, along with the lifetimes of their own eventual offspring. In the competitive, profit-driven assisted reproductive technology industry, numerous doctors may well end up performing these procedures with little regulatory or administrative hindrance.

And in a world where individuals with perverse intentions will stop at nothing to pursue their fantasies, having access to technology that can alter the makeup of humanity is incredibly dangerous. It's not hard to imagine the disturbing consequences. But as our understanding of genetics is ever-growing, using CRISPR to enhance humans is also risky due to the possibility of inadvertently creating children with severe medical problems.

Rightfully, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued guidelines concerning several areas, such as choosing embryos for sex and social reasons. But these guidelines lack monitoring and enforcement and can often be strengthened. But these clinics are not required to provide this information, and many don't.

Unfortunately, many clinicians appear to oppose additional reporting requirements and stronger guidelines. Nonetheless, governmental agencies should mandate that IVF clinics submit patient data so we can monitor our use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and other practices.

Stay up to date Luckily, altering nature is far more complicated than many think. Scientists have investigated hundreds of genes for links to intelligence. The gene with the strongest effect raises IQ by only about 1 point. Undoubtedly, multiple genes and other factors are involved.

With racism and economic divides prevalent in our society, we need to be better prepared for these ongoing technological advances that are changing generations of people and our species as a whole. The development of gene-altering technologies, once the stuff of sci-fi movies, should prompt us to realize that eugenics is no longer a thing of the past -- or of a fictional future.