Center for Genetics and Society

A handful of South African academics claimed that creating genetically modified children is now permitted there, prompting alarm from advocates and an eventual response from the Chair of South Africa's National Health Research Ethics Council. https://lnkd.in/eByxA_sy Scientists, researchers and advocates, including Françoise Baylis and CGS’ Katie Hasson, raised concerns about interpretations of new language in South Africa’s health research ethics guidelines that could pave the way for heritable human genome editing. https://lnkd.in/eGHaFFJP Critics of the interpretation emphasize that it conflicts with South African law, ignores ethical concerns with heritable genome editing, and pushes a false narrative of public acceptance. https://lnkd.in/d4GWr2jF Dr Anye Nyamnjoh, University of Cape Town, argues that invoking the African philosophical concept of Ubuntu to advocate for equal access to heritable genome editing exemplifies “ethics washing”––using superficial ethical language to legitimize an agenda without substantive engagement. https://lnkd.in/dX_fqAhn After alerts from CGS and others about their misleading effort, the Chair of South Africa's National Health Research Ethics Council confirmed that heritable human genome editing is prohibited. https://lnkd.in/eDss72H4

A handful of South African academics championed the claim that creating genetically modified children is now permitted there. After alerts from CGS and others about their misleading effort, the Chair of South Africa's National Health Research Ethics Council confirmed that heritable human genome editing is prohibited. https://lnkd.in/eByxA_sy Francoise Baylis

A little-noticed change to South Africa’s national health research guidelines appears to permit genome editing to create genetically modified children. But this provision conflicts with the South African National Health Act of 2004.  https://lnkd.in/egni6k-v Francoise Baylis

A little-noticed change to South Africa’s national health research guidelines appears to position the country as the first to explicitly permit the use of genome editing to create genetically modified children. https://lnkd.in/egni6k-v Francoise Baylis

In the current presidential campaign, the battle over abortion has swelled and morphed to encompass IVF. Meanwhile, rapidly evolving discussions are tackling some of the more complicated facets of new reproductive technologies and those yet to come. https://lnkd.in/eUpu_vyX

https://lnkd.in/esyS5rDh

In the second essay of the Legacies of Eugenics series, Aubrey Clayton excavates the troubling correlation between the birth of statistical methods and the history of eugenics. Galton, Pearson, and Fisher made causal interpretations of statistical correlations to promote their eugenic ideas. The same interpretive errors––and eugenic logics––can be found in contemporary science. https://lnkd.in/eRRpEabF

Endorsed by over 70 orgs and individuals, the first document to explicitly center gender justice, disability rights, and human rights in debates on the potential use of heritable human genome editing is now available in German and Spanish. https://lnkd.in/ePVxJEHm

Companies want to convince the public that taking the “Gattaca route” of genetic testing and embryo selection will ensure their child's future––which makes it all the more urgent to recognize  the eugenic threats these technologies pose. https://lnkd.in/emtFZnpy

Look for “Untangling CRISPR’s Twisted Tales,” an essay by CGS’ Marcy Darnovsky and Katie Hasson in this new edited volume “The Promise and Peril of CRISPR” on potential impacts of gene editing technology, published by Johns Hopkins University Press and edited by Neal Baer.