A New Startup Wants to Edit Human Embryos: The Quest for Disease-Free Children
Seven years after the revelation of gene-edited babies, a biotech startup is reviving the debate around human embryo editing. Manhattan Genomics aims to end genetic disease and alleviate human suffering by fixing harmful mutations at the embryo stage.
The company's stated goal is to use gene-editing technology, specifically CRISPR, to correct disease-causing genes in embryos. This approach has sparked both excitement and concern among scientists, ethicists, and policymakers. Critics argue that the technology is still too new and untested for human reproduction, while proponents see it as a potential game-changer for families affected by genetic diseases.
Manhattan Genomics' cofounder Cathy Tie says she wants to make gene-editing more acceptable in society. She believes that any changes made to reproductive cells are heritable, allowing for the elimination of disease-causing mutations from future generations. However, experts caution that unintended "off-target" effects could occur, potentially leading to cancer or other serious health issues.
Tie's team has assembled a diverse group of scientific contributors, including an IVF doctor, a data scientist, and two reproductive biologists. They plan to start with studies in mice and then move on to monkeys before pursuing human trials. However, experts warn that regulatory obstacles, particularly in the US, may slow or halt the development of this technology.
Kiran Musunuru, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that there are already effective ways to detect inherited genetic diseases through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). He suggests that gene editing might be used for rare cases where PGD is not feasible. Fyodor Urnov, a professor at UC Berkeley, expresses concern about the "quasi-eugenics" aspect of human embryo editing and its potential misuse.
Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, emphasizes the importance of institutional oversight and academic research in ensuring that gene-editing technology is developed responsibly. He notes that a 10-year moratorium on heritable gene editing has been proposed by some experts to allow for further evaluation.
Manhattan Genomics' mission to develop safe and effective gene-editing technologies is an ambitious one. As the debate around human embryo editing continues, it remains to be seen whether this technology will ultimately become a viable option for families affected by genetic diseases.
Seven years after the revelation of gene-edited babies, a biotech startup is reviving the debate around human embryo editing. Manhattan Genomics aims to end genetic disease and alleviate human suffering by fixing harmful mutations at the embryo stage.
The company's stated goal is to use gene-editing technology, specifically CRISPR, to correct disease-causing genes in embryos. This approach has sparked both excitement and concern among scientists, ethicists, and policymakers. Critics argue that the technology is still too new and untested for human reproduction, while proponents see it as a potential game-changer for families affected by genetic diseases.
Manhattan Genomics' cofounder Cathy Tie says she wants to make gene-editing more acceptable in society. She believes that any changes made to reproductive cells are heritable, allowing for the elimination of disease-causing mutations from future generations. However, experts caution that unintended "off-target" effects could occur, potentially leading to cancer or other serious health issues.
Tie's team has assembled a diverse group of scientific contributors, including an IVF doctor, a data scientist, and two reproductive biologists. They plan to start with studies in mice and then move on to monkeys before pursuing human trials. However, experts warn that regulatory obstacles, particularly in the US, may slow or halt the development of this technology.
Kiran Musunuru, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that there are already effective ways to detect inherited genetic diseases through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). He suggests that gene editing might be used for rare cases where PGD is not feasible. Fyodor Urnov, a professor at UC Berkeley, expresses concern about the "quasi-eugenics" aspect of human embryo editing and its potential misuse.
Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, emphasizes the importance of institutional oversight and academic research in ensuring that gene-editing technology is developed responsibly. He notes that a 10-year moratorium on heritable gene editing has been proposed by some experts to allow for further evaluation.
Manhattan Genomics' mission to develop safe and effective gene-editing technologies is an ambitious one. As the debate around human embryo editing continues, it remains to be seen whether this technology will ultimately become a viable option for families affected by genetic diseases.
. Gene editing in embryos might sound like a dream come true, but what about all the unknowns? We're talking about messing with the fundamental building blocks of life here 
. The risks of off-target effects are real, and we can't just brush them under the rug. And let's not forget the whole 'designer babies' vibe that comes with this tech 
. It's like we're playing God or something 
. Not to mention the regulatory hurdles - what even is considered 'safe' for human reproduction? This all feels a bit too rushed to me, and I think we need more time to figure out the long-term consequences of messing around with our DNA 
.
, i mean think about all the ppl out there suffering from genetic diseases and having kids that'll suffer too... its not like they wanna just give up on them cuz their parents had a disease 
. and btw, 10 yrs moratorium sounds like a good idea to me, let science catch up with ethics 
.
That's just not worth it in my opinion. I mean, we already got PGD, which is like a pretty good solution for detecting inherited genetic diseases. So why do we need to go down this road? 
. I mean, I get it, these people are trying to help families who've been affected by genetic diseases, but we gotta be careful here.
.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but let's not forget that scientists have been wrong before (ask CRISPR itself 
). And what about all these regulatory obstacles in the US? It's just gonna be a huge mess. Maybe instead of trying to fix genetic diseases, we should focus on making our healthcare system better for people already affected by them 
...
. Let's not rush into something that could have serious consequences, you know?