No ethical obstacle to ‘designer babies’, say scientists
DESIGNER babies are on the horizon after an influential group of scientists concluded that it could be “morally permissible” to genetically engineer human embryos.
In a new report that opens the door to a change in the law, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said DNA editing could become an option for parents wanting to “influence the genetic characteristics of their child”. Although it would be largely used to cure devastating genetic illnesses or predispositions to cancers and dementia, the Nuffield Council did not rule out cosmetic uses such as increasing height or changing eye or hair colour.
In the past the council has given the green light to controversial procedures such as three-parent babies, where the DNA of a “second mother” is used to replace faulty code in a cell’s batteries. Scientists are only allowed to genetically edit human embryos for 14 days for research purposes, after which they must be destroyed.
It is illegal to implant them into a womb. But the council said it could become legal if safeguards were met.
Prof Karen Yeung, the chairman of the working party on genome editing and human reproduction, said: “There is potential for heritable genome editing interventions to be used at some point in the future in assisted human reproduction as a means for people to secure certain characteristics in their children. Initially, this might involve preventing the inheritance of a specific genetic disorder.
“However, if the technology develops it has potential to become an alternative strategy available to parents for achieving a wider range of goals.
“Whilst there is still uncertainty over the sorts of things genome editing might be able to achieve, or how widely its use might spread, the potential use of genome editing to influence the characteristics of future generations is not unacceptable in itself.”
The Nuffield Council said genetic editing of embryos should be regulated by the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority and only licensed on a case-by-case basis, with individuals monitored for long-term side-effects.
It also called for further research into genetic editing techniques such as Crispr, which removes bad DNA and replaces it with healthy code.
Dr David King, the director of the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, said people who could not afford genetic editing would be disadvantaged. “This is an absolute disgrace,” he said. “The people of Britain decided 15 years ago that they don’t want GM food. Do you suppose they want GM babies?”