All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
Research on genetically modified human embryos has "tremendous value" to science and should be freely permitted, a group of international policy experts has argued.
A report by The Hinxton Group, which consists of stem cell researchers and bioethicists from eight countries, said that editing the genetic code of embryos in their early stages is "essential" to gain deeper understanding into human life and disease.
In the statement, the group -- which met in the UK last week -- said that it didn't approve of genetically engineered babies being born currently, though it added that it may be "morally acceptable" in the future in order to advance genetic research. "We acknowledge that when all safety, efficacy and governance needs are met, there may be morally acceptable uses of this technology in human reproduction, though further substantial discussion and debate will be required," the group explained.
The call for public discussion around the controversial issue of GM embryos comes at a time when new techniques for accurately editing the human genome are becoming powerful new tools for biologists.
In April 2015, researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in China used a genome editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9 to modify a gene responsible for potentially deadly blood disorders in human embryos. Although the experiments were largely unsuccessful -- with the desired gene produced in only four out of some 54 embryos that were modified -- it sparked long-running questions about the ethical implications of such research.
In the US the National Institutes of Health (NIH) refuses to fund research into gene-editing technologies in human embryos.
The Hinxton Group, which formed in 2006, added that it was unable to agree on what -- if any -- circumstances would justify editing human embryos, sperm or eggs for reproductive applications. However, the group went on to say that "policymakers should refrain from constraining scientific inquiry unless there is substantial justification for doing so."
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
