7 hours ago
https://undark.org/2026/04/08/genetics-a...heritance/
EXCERPT: It is a moment that the global science community has been anticipating, and publicly angsting over, for years. Since the emergence of the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 more than a decade ago, scientists, bioethicists, legal scholars, faith leaders, and policy experts have wrestled with what it would mean to use the tool to tinker with the human gene pool — the fulfillment it could bring to prospective parents who want to bring healthy, flourishing offspring into the world; the socioeconomic inequalities it could deepen; the transformative effect it could have on what it means to be human.
Reports from professional organizations, national academies, and working groups have largely arrived at the same conclusion: The science is still too immature, and the social implications too uncertain, to deploy on humanity a tool that, once unleashed, could be difficult if not impossible to rein in. In many countries, including the U.S., it remains illegal to initiate a pregnancy with an edited embryo.
But gene-editing tools have continued to improve, and there are signs that startup companies — motivated potentially by altruism, but certainly by profit — could lead a charge to undo a key provision restricting embryo editing in the U.S., or perhaps skirt it altogether by offering their services in countries with laxer laws. With few international guardrails in place, there’s concern that a determined company might take it upon itself to decide when the technology is ready to release into the wild.
Aleksei Mikhalchenko, a biologist who previously conducted embryo editing research at Oregon Health & Science University, says he doesn’t think it’s a coincidence that so many startups are choosing this moment to test the waters on human embryo editing. “Something is out there,” said Mikhalchenko, who left OHSU last June to help launch the biotech company e184 Repro. “Maybe some people know more than scientists know in academic labs.”
“I’ve been working in this field for the last six years,” Mikhalchenko said, adding that there “was no indication that people want to pursue it and push it towards the clinic, but suddenly, in 2025, there are more than one.” (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPT: It is a moment that the global science community has been anticipating, and publicly angsting over, for years. Since the emergence of the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 more than a decade ago, scientists, bioethicists, legal scholars, faith leaders, and policy experts have wrestled with what it would mean to use the tool to tinker with the human gene pool — the fulfillment it could bring to prospective parents who want to bring healthy, flourishing offspring into the world; the socioeconomic inequalities it could deepen; the transformative effect it could have on what it means to be human.
Reports from professional organizations, national academies, and working groups have largely arrived at the same conclusion: The science is still too immature, and the social implications too uncertain, to deploy on humanity a tool that, once unleashed, could be difficult if not impossible to rein in. In many countries, including the U.S., it remains illegal to initiate a pregnancy with an edited embryo.
But gene-editing tools have continued to improve, and there are signs that startup companies — motivated potentially by altruism, but certainly by profit — could lead a charge to undo a key provision restricting embryo editing in the U.S., or perhaps skirt it altogether by offering their services in countries with laxer laws. With few international guardrails in place, there’s concern that a determined company might take it upon itself to decide when the technology is ready to release into the wild.
Aleksei Mikhalchenko, a biologist who previously conducted embryo editing research at Oregon Health & Science University, says he doesn’t think it’s a coincidence that so many startups are choosing this moment to test the waters on human embryo editing. “Something is out there,” said Mikhalchenko, who left OHSU last June to help launch the biotech company e184 Repro. “Maybe some people know more than scientists know in academic labs.”
“I’ve been working in this field for the last six years,” Mikhalchenko said, adding that there “was no indication that people want to pursue it and push it towards the clinic, but suddenly, in 2025, there are more than one.” (MORE - missing details)