Recent biomedical news headlines have exposed the deadly lack of ethics in research involving human embryos. Dr. Dieter Egli, a Columbia University developmental cell biologist, claims his team successfully “base edited” the genome of several human embryos. Why is this generally being hailed as a scientific milestone rather than a giant ethical violation, as happened when Dr. He Jiankui similarly performed germ-line gene editing of embryos in 2018? 

Egli, unlike He, had no surviving embryos after his experiments ended. I believe this says it all. 

Human embryos are treated as intensely interesting entities available for every sort of deadly manipulation, but the one unforgivable sin of human embryonic research is to allow the subjects to live. 

He Jiankui used the much less precise CRISPR-Cas9 technique, which in other experiments damaged or deleted entire chromosomes unintentionally. Three girls subjected to his gene editing interventions survived to birth. His actions led to an international outcry, and consensus grew among scientists that CRISPR gene manipulation of embryos could not be done reliably and safely. 

The embarrassed government of China condemned him to three years in prison. Dr. He is nonetheless unrepentant for his actions.

Base editing, on the other hand, is a second-generation refinement of the CRISPR tool that precisely targets single “letters” in genes, reducing but not eliminating the risk of unplanned genetic alterations. The difference is described as chopping out entire segments of DNA in CRISPR and making tiny, precise cuts with base editing. 

Egli’s Columbia University team also reported major problems with its technique, however. The DNA editing they did caused the affected cells to stop reproducing. This means there is currently no risk of gene editing being inflicted on embryos with a chance of being born via in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer.  

This is important because the latest research is being funded by Nucleus Genomics, a company that became infamous for a 2025 ad campaign in the New York subway system proclaiming messages like, “Have your best baby” and “Height is 80% genetic.” 

The company’s business model is the lucrative, preimplantation genetic screening of IVF-conceived embryos. They go beyond the most common anomalies to encompass thousands of genetic syndromes and disorders and include “tests” for other traits, like intelligence. Nucleus Genomics is interested in developing this base editing technology that could allow parents in the future to “optimize” the genetics of their IVF-conceived children. 

Fortunately, the clear eugenic program that is unfolding has set off ethical alarms through a broad cross-section of secular and religious ethicists. It is not overly dramatic to say that we are dealing with the future of humanity in these discussions. 

The transhumanist dream is to successfully “improve” select human beings and go beyond what is currently physically possible. IVF is an integral part of their vision. IVF already has a built-in eugenic component, as “quality control” diagnostic tests are standard practice for most IVF clinics. Any embryo with even suspected problems is immediately killed. 

Ethical concerns are not holding them back, only the technical limits of genetic testing and manipulation have so far restricted what is done. Given the almost complete lack of meaningful laws and regulations on the IVF industry, everyone should be deeply concerned about where scientific research is going. 

From a natural law and Catholic perspective, there could be good uses of less imprecise gene editing technology as a therapeutic intervention for children and adults. An example of this is the gene therapy using CRISPR that was approved by the FDA in 2023 for sickle cell disease. In this case, the genetic modifications cure patients of a painful and even deadly disease without seeking to eugenically create “superior” human beings. It restores health rather than enhancing abilities beyond what is normal. 

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instruction Dignitas Personae stated: “Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit. Such actions seek to restore the normal genetic configuration of the patient or to counter damage caused by genetic anomalies or those related to other pathologies.” 

The ethical caveats that apply to all medical procedures, that the patient should not be subjected to disproportionate risks and the cost should not be exorbitant, would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Any gene editing of embryos, however, takes us to a deeper level of ethical problems. These gene edits would affect not only individuals but also their future children and indeed all direct descendants. This clearly requires extra safeguards. 

Dignitas Personae, written in 2008, taught that: 

“In the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny. In the hypothesis of gene therapy on the embryo, it needs to be added that this only takes place in the context of in vitro fertilization and thus runs up against all the ethical objections to such procedures. For these reasons, therefore, it must be stated that, in its current state, germ line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit.” 

There has been success recently in gene editing to repair individual cells with Trisomy 21 or Down syndrome. If safe and effective means of treating sick human embryos or fetuses in the womb were developed, it might indeed be ethical to attempt it.

The latest news of improved techniques of gene editing applied to human embryos is troubling. It reminds us that laws and regulations concerning experimentation on human beings must urgently be extended to human embryos. 

Thankfully, we are still not faced with a technique effective enough to market to the public. It is also good that the U.S. federal government currently does not fund any research that involves human embryos, but what is really required is a ban on such research that inevitably kills human beings. 

Truly therapeutic research should be encouraged, working first with animals rather than humans, and never involving the moral violation of human IVF.

 

Joseph Meaney, Ph.D., is a senior ethicist and past president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.