The Moral Argument for Human Embryo Gene Editing: A Biotech Founder’s Perspective

When the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced in 2018 that he had created the first gene-edited babies, the scientific community condemned the experiment as reckless and premature, eventually leading to He’s imprisonment.

Despite this controversy, the movement to advance gene-edited human embryos continues. Cathy Tie, a biotech entrepreneur, argues that pursuing this technology is not merely an option, but a “moral imperative.”

Tie, the 30-year-old founder of Origin Genomics, launched her company in March with the goal of integrating gene-edited embryos into IVF clinics. In a recent commentary for the journal Trends in Genetics, she advocates for increased public funding and the establishment of new regulatory frameworks to transition gene-edited embryos from research toward clinical application.

However, significant hurdles remain. The scientific community continues to debate what level of evidence is required to prove that gene-edited embryos are safe enough to support a successful pregnancy, and what long-term health risks might be inherited by the resulting children.

“There are cautionary tales of first human trials where there was really no flashing red light, and people died,” warns Hank Greely, a law professor and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University.

Germline gene editing involves modifying reproductive cells, such as embryos, meaning any alterations can be passed down to future generations. While this offers the potential to permanently eliminate devastating genetic mutations, it also carries the risk of “off-target effects”—accidental DNA edits that could introduce new, heritable health complications. Because of these high stakes, many nations have implemented bans on editing human embryos intended for pregnancy.

Currently, individuals at risk of passing on genetic diseases can utilize IVF combined with preimplantation genetic testing to select disease-free embryos. Critics of embryo editing argue that these existing screening tools make gene editing largely unnecessary, with Greely noting that editing would benefit only “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction” of the population.

The limitation of current methods lies in the inefficiency of IVF. Even for individuals without a known genetic risk, viable embryos can be scarce. For example, Ian Watts and Cheyenne Ziegler underwent three rounds of IVF to ensure their children would not inherit the genetic variant responsible for Watts’ Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a degenerative neurological disorder. In any IVF cycle, many eggs fail to fertilize, and others fail to develop properly or possess chromosomal abnormalities. When additional genetic screening is applied, many viable embryos are discarded.

In the case of Watts and Ziegler, three rounds of IVF yielded eight chromosomally normal embryos, but only three were free of the specific genetic variant. This number is likely insufficient for the couple to achieve their goal of having a larger family.

“The choices currently available are either not having children or doing lots of IVF,” says Watts, a 36-year-old engineer from Long Beach, California. For individuals in his position, gene editing could significantly increase the chances of building a family. The technology could also assist couples in extremely rare scenarios where every embryo would otherwise inherit a disease-causing mutation.

“We’re here to treat these diseases, not just exclude embryos and call it a day,” says Tie, a former Thiel Fellow.

The invention of CRISPR opened the door to the possibility of gene-edited babies over a decade ago, and subsequent advancements have brought increasing precision to the field. In June, researchers at Columbia University demonstrated the use of “base editing” to modify early-stage human embryos with remarkable accuracy. Tie references this progress in her commentary, asserting that highly precise gene editing is now becoming a reality.

Source link