Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Better beings?

As the technology to create genetically modified babies moves closer to practice, what questions should we ask before such procedures are contemplated? Amber Dance investigates.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: A patchwork of laws and regulations for germline modification.

© iStockphoto

Figure 2: Acceptance of genome engineering.

References

  1. 1

    Ma, H. et al. Nature 548, 413–419 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Geurts, A.M. et al. Science 325, 433 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Boyce, N. Nature 414, 677 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Liang, P. et al. Protein Cell 6, 363–372 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Kang, X. et al. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33, 581–588 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Tang, L. et al. Mol. Genet. Genomics 292, 525–533 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Fogarty, N.M.E., et al. Nature 550, 67–73 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Egli, D. et al. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/28/181255 (2017).

  9. 9

    Scott, D.A. & Zhang, F. Nat. Med. 23, 1095–1101 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Lek, M. et al. Nature 536, 285–291 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

  12. 12

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Global Discussion (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2015).

  13. 13

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2017).

  14. 14

    Ormond, K.E., et al. Amer. J. Human Genet. 101, 167–176 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Lanphier, E., et al. Nature 519, 410–411 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Egan, J.F.X. et al. Prenat. Diagn. 31, 389–394 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    de Graaf, G. et al. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.38402 (2017).

  18. 18

    Albrecht, G.L. & Devlieger, P.J. Soc. Sci. Med. 48, 977–88 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Scheufele, D.A., et al. Science 357, 553–554 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Cyranoski, D. Nature 548, 272–274 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Ishii, T., Brief Funct. Genomics 16, 46–56 (2017)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Konig, H., Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 502–506 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Lander, E.S. N. Eng. J. Med. 373, 5–8 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Jonsson, T. Nature 488, 96–99 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Mercader, J.M. et al. Diabetes https://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db17-0187 (2017).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dance, A. Better beings?. Nat Biotechnol 35, 1006–1011 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3998

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

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