Heritable genome editing and cognitive biases: why broad societal consensus is the wrong standard for moving forward.

Heritable genome editing (HGE) may one day safely correct mutations that cause serious monogenic diseases. Nevertheless, some scientists and bioethicists argue that HGE should be subject to a moratorium. In their view, no nation should proceed with clinical use absent broad societal consensus in favor of moving forward with HGE and a specific use. This article critiques this plan in light of two cognitive biases. First, human beings favor the status quo. We are primed to favor human reproduction and the human genome in their current forms and resist HGE. Second, human beings also dwell on negative information. Dr He Jiankui's unethical and premature experiment encourages us to judge HGE and its offspring harshly. By reinforcing these biases, the proposed moratorium would make it difficult to achieve broad societal consensus in support of using HGE even to correct dangerous mutations. As an alternative, this article recommends HGE be regulated for safety and efficacy. This approach will keep scientists from using HGE prematurely, while giving society time to discuss this new technology and enact further legislation if necessary.

Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Heritable Genome Editing and the Downsides of a Global Moratorium.

In 2018, Dr. He Jiankui reported that he had edited human embryos and transferred them to a woman, causing her to give birth to twin girls with modified genomes. An international group of scientists and ethicists responded by proposing a global moratorium on heritable genome editing (HGE). In this article, I oppose this proposal on several grounds. A global moratorium might encourage participating nations to ban HGE or postpone access to it indefinitely. It might also deter or delay basic research that could lead to safe and effective HGE. Lastly, a global moratorium might induce participating nations to adopt or maintain laws and regulations that stigmatize children born with modified genomes. As an alternative, I argue that nations should regulate HGE for safety and efficacy only and without distinguishing between therapeutic and enhancing modifications.