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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Human germline genome editing and broad societal consensus

Nature Human Behaviour volume 1, Article number: 0103 (2017) Cite this article

Subjects

Should human genome editing be limited to somatic cells, or should germline genome editing also be permitted? Should (apparently) permissible human genome editing be limited to therapeutic purposes, or should enhancement purposes also be permitted? Who decides, and on what basis?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Maranto, G. False inevitabilities and irrational exuberance. Biopolitical Times http://go.nature.com/2qoLtDm (2016).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M. & Smolenski, J. Nature 519, 410–411 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Olson, S. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Global Discussion (The National Academis of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015); http://go.nature.com/2pwNV7w

  6. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance (The National Academies Press, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2ooO6jx

  7. Drabiak, K. Engineering consensus in the development of genome editing policy. Hastings Bioethics Forum http://go.nature.com/2pGLoKJ (2017).

  8. Global Risks 2015 10th edn (World Economic Forum, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2oRe03f

  9. Baylis, F. ‘Broad societal consensus’ on human germline editing. Harvard Health Policy Review Vol. 15, 19–23 (2016).

  10. Beatty, J. in Landscapes of Collectivity in the Life Sciences (eds Gissis, S. B., Lamm, E. & Shavit, A. ) (in the press).

  11. Resource Handbook (Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice, 1983).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor and Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy, Novel Tech Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, PO Box 15000, 1379 Seymour Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada

    Françoise Baylis

Authors
  1. Françoise Baylis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Françoise Baylis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baylis, F. Human germline genome editing and broad societal consensus. Nat Hum Behav 1, 0103 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0103

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0103

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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