English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Heritable genome editing (HGE) may one day safely correct mutations that cause serious monogenic diseases. Nevertheless, some scientists and bioethicists argue that HGE should be subject to a moratorium. In their view, no nation should proceed with clinical use absent broad societal consensus in favor of moving forward with HGE and a specific use. This article critiques this plan in light of two cognitive biases. First, human beings favor the status quo. We are primed to favor human reproduction and the human genome in their current forms and resist HGE. Second, human beings also dwell on negative information. Dr He Jiankui’s unethical and premature experiment encourages us to judge HGE and its offspring harshly. By reinforcing these biases, the proposed moratorium would make it difficult to achieve broad societal consensus in support of using HGE even to correct dangerous mutations. As an alternative, this article recommends HGE be regulated for safety and efficacy. This approach will keep scientists from using HGE prematurely, while giving society time to discuss this new technology and enact further legislation if necessary.

Heritable genome editing and cognitive biases: why broad societal consensus is the wrong standard for moving forward