American Scientist

To the Editors:

The Science Communication column “The Gene-Editing Conversation” by Matthew Nisbet in the January–February (2018) issue is about an important topic. But the article is framed in the way that policy experts examine controversial subjects.

The conversation about gene editing will change completely once we learn a reasonably effective technology for enhancing some trait that upper-middle-class parents consider important for giving their children an advantage in life—and the first Better Baby™ franchise will open in some jurisdiction with light regulation.

At that point, the only parties to the conversation that will continue to matter will be the unending stream of affluent customers and the businesses profiting by supplying them with the enhanced children that they want.

A genetic-enhancement industry will be unlike any other. Even if the practice is banned in the United States, the government won’t restrict the importation of genetically enhanced children produced elsewhere for U.S. citizen parents, no matter what technology is used, and I doubt that the United States will have the political will to prevent its citizens from traveling to that lightly regulated jurisdiction.

Dale R. Worley
Waltham, MA

Dr. Nisbet responds:

Despite Mr. Worley’s imagined outcomes, early and sustained public dialogue and input are essential to the development and governance of gene-editing applications for a number of reasons. First, most research in the area is either directly or indirectly financed by tax-supported government funding. It is therefore essential to maintain public confidence in the ability of scientists to make wise and ethical decisions about research; otherwise, funding is likely to be limited, or research directions restricted by regulation. Because most research is publicly financed, it is also necessary to consult the public regarding what they believe to be morally and ethically acceptable. Second, once applications are introduced to the market, public acceptance of those applications is not guaranteed, as has been the case in the debate over genetically modified food. Early and sustained public consultation is the only strategy that can help bolster public confidence and acceptance in specific applications once they are available to patients and consumers. Overall, public dialogue is likely to promote a more careful and egalitarian implementation of gene editing, while also avoiding the polarization and pushback that have come to characterize debates about genetic modification.