Correspondence | Published:

Germline edits: Trust ethics review process

Nature volume 520, page 623 (30 April 2015) | Download Citation

Edward Lanphier and colleagues contend that human germline editing is an unethical technology because it could have unpredictable effects on future generations. In our view, such misgivings do not justify their proposed moratorium (Nature 519, 410–411; 2015).

When in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis were first introduced, they had unpredictable consequences. Both went on to transform reproductive medicine.

Many nations already have ethics review processes that assess the risks of experiments on human embryos, with the prospect of even stricter evaluation standards as new fertility techniques come along (I. G. Cohen et al. Science 348, 178–180; 2015).

There is no reason to close off whole avenues of controversial research when they have barely begun (see, for example, Nature; 2015). Germline editing is a revolutionary technology that potentially offers an enormous range of benefits to the next generation.

Author information


  1. University of Oxford, UK.

    • Julian Savulescu
    • , Chris Gyngell
    •  & Tom Douglas


  1. Search for Julian Savulescu in:

  2. Search for Chris Gyngell in:

  3. Search for Tom Douglas in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Savulescu.

About this article

Publication history




By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing