Looks like mainstream bioethicists are working to mainstream human germline genetic engineering. The world’s first bioethics institute, the Hastings Center, held a so-called “debate” on the ethics of gene editing human embryos, where both sides agreed that greenlighting it was a good thing, differing only on how much it should be regulated, if at all. Despite a robust international history of dismay and disapproval, the question of whether to proceed with the technology for reproductive purposes was simply not addressed. The event, which can be seen here, took place on April 23, 2026, left so much off the table that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that its chief impact will be to normalize the genetic alteration of the human species rather than interrogating whether it is ethical to do so.
To remind: When, in 2018, Chinese bioengineer He Jiankui genetically edited twin infants, he received global condemnation and was imprisoned for three years. International calls for a moratorium on any such further research held the day, with worldwide scientific opinion raising the hue and cry that no such tampering with the human germline should proceed unless and until the proposition received global consensus. Three international scientific summits later, no such consensus could be reached.This seemed not to trouble the Hastings Center.
For starters, nowhere did it reveal that its most bullish “debater”, CEO and Founder of Origins Genomics and “serial biotech founder”Cathy Tie, was briefly married to the discredited embryonic gene editing international scofflaw, He Jiankui. Certainly, this deserved to be daylighted and examined for potential conflicts of interest. This was especially problematic since Tie’s implicit outlining of how the debate should proceed held sway: She announced early on that it was unacceptable that scientific research was being held back waiting for global consensus for approval. Nowhere was it considered that not receiving such approval is, de facto, consensus – a consensus to NOT proceed. Moreover, nowhere was it revealed or considered what Tie’s conflicts-of-interest are as a bio-entrepreneur standing to make millions from the research programs she champions.
What are the implied precepts of such unspoken opening positions? That scientists are oracles, and the public must fall in line? That bioentrepreneurs have no conflicts of interest?
For attendees hoping for real debate, it was all downhill after that. There was no one at the debate representing the point of view that human germline genetic engineering should be banned and what implementation of such a ban should look like.
A number of Tie’s declarations, because they went unchallenged by either the moderator or the only other panelist, Harvard bioethicist Glenn Cohen, functioned as fiats setting debating parameters. The most notable of such positions being that it was simply untenable, as Tie viewed it, that the lack of approving global consensus should be a barrier from moving forward with research and development. There was no discussion as to why the overwhelming international position that originally required consensus should be overruled – much less so peremptorily. Even more troubling, there was no mention made of various international treaties’ strong disapproval of HHBE, such as the Oviedo Convention.
Another of Tie’s fiats was that considering IVG (in vitro gametogenesis) was irrelevant given that it is a technology likely to be clinically available only at an unspecified time in the future. But, surely, IVG is most appropriately considered when contemplating human germline editing. IVG refers to the creation of embryos from unconventionally sourced eggs and sperm, i.e. from gametes not produced naturally by the human body but that are produced in the lab from stem cells. For one thing, promoters of the technology claim it’s arrival is a matter of just a few years before it becomes a tenable option for human clinical use. Animal trials already are underway. For another, IVG will make human reproduction a matter of bio-corporate creation of an unprecedented magnitude. It will be trivially easy to make human (artificial) embryos in large numbers; and should gene editing now be approved, there is little doubt that such editing will be a feature of the making of IVG embryos. Will the menu of artificial reproduction options be limited to infertile couple as the term “infertile” is now understood? Will human embryos be made as sources for organs? For military use in creating armies of perfect fighting bio-machines?
Not nearly enough time was given to the eugenic implications of proceeding with embryo gene editing. It seems to have been taken at face value that germline editing would be limited to trying to control disease and would not elide into enhancement to favor designer children. If there’s a problem, Cohen has faith that government regulators will be able to take care of it but does not explain what supports his belief. Ignoring the literature on agency capture and other regulatory failures, this faith is particularly ironic given Tie’s take, which went unchallenged, that eugenics only counts as eugenics if governments force you to do it. Whatever people do as a matter of reproductive choice is just fine.
Insufficient analysis was given to assessing why present methods of screening embryos for disease was not a sufficient way to deal with controlling human diseases. Nor was there adequate examination of why parents carrying genes for diseases should not be encouraged to seek adoption as a solution. Cohen’s dismissive remark that adoption is a social “need” for which everyone should accept responsibility and not just “target” infertile couples or people with diseases to deal with, carried a stinging implication for all adopted children and their parents. Adopted children are not social burdens. They are loved and loving members of families. Why should adoption be so glibly disregarded when it constitutes a very reasonable option for infertile couples – and one that avoids human germline genetic engineering?
There was no serious analysis spent on how children born after being genetically edited will constitute living medical experiments. Tie’s brief dismissal comparing gene edited children to all other cases where parents make decisions for their children is blatant nonsense that should have been challenged. How many parental decisions require seeing their children medically registered and followed for undetermined decades to assess what unintended consequences their gene edits may have incurred?
Perhaps the biggest reveal as to how this debate’s deck was stacked is the fact that while Tie featured a couple carrying a gene disorder to lobby public sentiment, there were no representatives from disability rights groups – this includes no representatives from deaf communities – a group that would have highlighted some of the eugenic implications if this technology and about whom Cohen stated deserved a very big seat at the table.
Indeed, how Tie contacts or is contacted by couples for whom she advocates merits interrogation. Gene-editing is not a feature on the menu of options currently available at IVF clinics. How would couples think to ask about it? Are bioentrepreneurs contacting IVF clients and patient groups to hawk untested hyped promises in order to create markets for controversial technologies that may never be approved? This would constitute a serious conflict of interest and demonstrates how non-fiduciary this medical researcher-patient (i.e. research subject) relationship is. Are reproductive service consumers being informed of how many rounds of medical experimentation for clinical approval of gene edited embryos would be needed in order to establish creation of viable embryos, rates of off-target errors, mosaicism, follow-up, etc.?
Without serious cross examination of Tie’s self-promoting characterizations of “germline gene correction” as she calls it, Cohen’s call for “widespread public engagement” can be revealed for what it is: a call to “educate” the public into accepting government’s role in moving forward with research and clinical application of germline editing. Certainly, his point of view did NOT include listening to public opposition to moving forward with clinical applications.
This “debate” was an exercise in midwifing human germline genetic engineering into social acceptance. For those wanting more from ethical gatekeepers, it has never been more important to grow the number of signatories of the International Declaration Against Legalization of Human Genetic Modification. Please circulate the Declaration, asking friends, family, and colleagues, to join you in fighting to protect a human future.