Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Part of the criticism of the one reported case of human preimplantation genome editing (PGE) turned on the inadequacy of the purpose for which it was undertaken (inherent immunity to HIV) and its target (the CCR5 gene). The discussion of CCR5 in this context reveals the different values that inform the idea of acceptable uses of PGE and of the conditions of responsible biomedical innovation among the scientist responsible and his critics. While the use of PGE for any indication remains unacceptable (or, at the very least, premature), neither position offers a satisfactory response to this prospective biotechnology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter Mills (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: