Yesterday saw the release of the National Academy of Sciences consensus report on human genome editing, which explored many of the issues surround the science and ethics of manipulating human genes. The Academy’s report cautiously welcomed the prospect of human germ line editing, but only if there were clear health benefits and that stringent regulations were adhered to. Here we round up the global media reaction to the report! 


An artist’s depiction of the CRISPR system in action.
Illustration by Stephen Dixon

Human genome editing shouldn’t be used for enhancement – yet (New Scientist)

With stringent oversight, heritable human genome editing could be allowed (Science Daily)

Genome-edited humans get green light from expert panel (Ars Technica)

US scientists back gene editing but warn against ‘designer babies’ (Telegraph)

CRISPR should be used to combat disease, not make designer babies (yet) (Wired)

No red line against CRISPR’ing early embryos, experts rule (STAT)

US panel gives yellow light to human embryo editing (Science)

Review favours human gene editing under stringent conditions (Financial Times)

Germline gene editing should be allowed – in certain cases (BioWorld Online)

Human Gene Editing Receives Science Panel’s Support (New York Times)

Ethicists advise caution in applying CRISPR gene editing to humans (Washington Post)

Human gene editing therapies are OK in certain cases, panel advises (Science News)


Spotted an article that we’ve missed? Let us know in the comments below.

More on these topics