Exaggerations and Misrepresentations Have No Place in Science Policy Debates
By Jeremy Gruber,
Council for Responsible Genetics
| 02. 15. 2013
Yesterday
Intelligence Squared held a debate (
watch it in its entirety here) on whether we should prohibit genetically engineered babies. Arguing for the motion were CRG Board Chair Professor Sheldon Krimsky and Robert Winston, professor at Imperial College London. Arguing against the motion was Nita Farahany, professor at Duke University and a member of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and Lee Silver, professor at Princeton University.
The debate quickly turned to focus on mitochondrial disease, a group of disorders caused by dysfunctional mitochondria, the organelles that generate energy for the cell and a new technique for treating such diseases that would, for the first time, allow the creation of babies whose genes have been intentionally altered by replacing the mitochondrial DNA. In focusing on this, and exclusively this element of genetic engineering, opponents of a ban managed to avoid any debate over genetic engineering purely for enhancement purposes. Indeed, Professor Silver seemed to distance himself from the more controversial opinions he espoused in his book,
Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform...
Related Articles
By Ed Cara, Gizmodo | 06.22.2025
In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined...
By Julia Métraux, Mother Jones | 05.28.2025
By Darren Incorvaia, Fierce Biotech | 06.05.2025
By Matthew Purdy, The New York Times | 05.29.2025
Image “Elon Musk” by Debbie Rowe, Royal Society on
Wikimedia Commons licensed under CC by S.A. 3.0
As Elon Musk prepared to make a less than triumphant exit from Washington, he told the Fox News host Jesse Watters earlier this...