Designer Babies and CRISPR: The Ethics of Editing Human Embryos

On November 25, 2018, a young Chinese biophysicist named He Jiankui stepped onto the stage at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong and announced something that sent shockwaves through the scientific world. He had used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit human embryos that were then implanted and carried to term. Twin girls, known by the pseudonyms Lulu and Nana, had been born weeks earlier. They were the first gene-edited humans in history.

The reaction was swift, near-universal, and damning. Fellow scientists called it reckless, unethical, and dangerous. Regulatory bodies condemned it. He Jiankui was eventually convicted and imprisoned. But the genie, as many noted at the time, was out of the bottle. The technology to edit the human germline exists. The question is no longer whether it can be done, but whether it should be, and if so, under what circumstances, by whom, and with what safeguards.

This article examines the scientific, ethical, legal, and social dimensions of human germline editing. It is a conversation that touches on medicine, disability, inequality, consent, and what it means to be human.

The He Jiankui Affair: What Actually Happened

He Jiankui was not a fringe figure. He held a PhD from Rice University, had done postdoctoral work at Stanford, and was an associate professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen. He had founded two genomics companies and was well-connected in China's rapidly growing biotech sector.

Beginning in early 2017, He recruited couples in which the father was HIV-positive and the mother HIV-negative. He told participants that his goal was to make their children resistant to HIV by disabling a gene called CCR5, which encodes a protein that the most common strains of HIV use as a co-receptor to enter human cells.

The scientific rationale had some basis in reality. A naturally occurring mutation known as CCR5-delta32, in which 32 base pairs are deleted from the CCR5 gene, renders individuals highly resistant to HIV infection. This variant is found in roughly 10% of people of European descent and is essentially absent in East Asian populations. The most famous case involved Timothy Ray Brown, the "Berlin Patient," who was functionally cured of HIV after receiving a bone marrow transplant from a donor carrying two copies of the CCR5-delta32 mutation.

He Jiankui used CRISPR-Cas9 to attempt to recreate this deletion in human embryos produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF). The editing was performed at the single-cell or early-embryo stage, with the intention that the modification would be present in every cell of the resulting person, including their reproductive cells, meaning the edit would be heritable.

The Problems Were Immediate and Numerous

When He presented his data in Hong Kong, experts quickly identified serious issues. The editing was incomplete and imprecise. In at least one of the twins, the CRISPR system had not successfully disrupted both copies of CCR5. This condition, known as mosaicism, meant that some cells carried the intended edit while others did not, offering at best partial protection against HIV.

Moreover, the edits He introduced were not identical to the naturally occurring CCR5-delta32 variant. They were novel mutations whose effects had not been characterized. There was no way to predict whether these new variants would provide HIV resistance, do nothing, or cause harm.

The medical justification was also weak. HIV is a manageable condition with modern antiretroviral therapy, and the fathers in the study had undetectable viral loads. Standard IVF procedures, including sperm washing, already provide an effective means of preventing HIV transmission from father to child. There was no urgent medical need that justified the risks of germline editing.

Perhaps most damning were the ethical lapses in the conduct of the research itself. Investigations by Chinese authorities and international journalists revealed that He had not obtained proper ethical approval. The informed consent documents provided to participants were misleading, describing the experiment as an "AIDS vaccine development project." Some members of He's team may not have fully understood what they were participating in. He had also allegedly falsified ethical review documents.

Criminal Conviction and Aftermath

In December 2019, the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court convicted He Jiankui of "illegal medical practice" and sentenced him to three years in prison and a fine of three million yuan (approximately $430,000). Two collaborators, Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou, received shorter sentences. He was released in April 2022.

During the investigation, it was also revealed that a third gene-edited baby had been born to a different couple in the study. Little public information is available about any of the three children, whose identities have been protected by Chinese authorities.

He Jiankui's case was not merely a story of one rogue scientist. It exposed deep vulnerabilities in the governance of emerging biotechnologies, particularly the gap between the pace of scientific capability and the pace of regulatory oversight.

Somatic vs. Germline Editing: A Critical Distinction

To understand why He Jiankui's experiment provoked such alarm, it is essential to grasp the distinction between somatic and germline editing, because the ethical calculus for each is fundamentally different.

Somatic Editing

Somatic gene editing modifies cells in a living person's body but does not affect their reproductive cells. The changes are confined to the treated individual and cannot be passed to future generations. This is what therapies like Casgevy (for sickle cell disease) and Luxturna (for inherited retinal dystrophy) do. A patient receives the treatment, and their condition improves or resolves, but their children inherit the same unedited genome as before.

Somatic editing operates within the familiar ethical framework of medical treatment. The patient (or their legal guardian) can give informed consent. The risks and benefits accrue to a single identifiable person. If something goes wrong, the consequences are limited to that individual. For these reasons, somatic gene editing has proceeded through conventional regulatory pathways involving clinical trials, informed consent, and phased approval.

Germline Editing

Germline editing modifies eggs, sperm, or early embryos. Because these changes are incorporated into every cell of the resulting person, including their own eggs or sperm, the modifications are heritable. They will be passed to that person's children, grandchildren, and all subsequent descendants.

This is what makes germline editing uniquely controversial. It is not just a medical intervention for one patient. It is a permanent alteration to the human gene pool. Three characteristics of germline editing set it apart from virtually every other medical technology:

Heritability. A germline edit propagates indefinitely through future generations. If the edit turns out to have harmful effects that only manifest later in life, or in combination with other genetic or environmental factors, those effects will cascade through an expanding number of people over time. There is no way to recall the modification once it has entered the population.

Impossibility of consent. The individuals most affected by a germline edit, the person who develops from the edited embryo and all of their descendants, cannot consent to the procedure. The embryo that becomes a person has no say in whether their genome is modified. Neither do their children or grandchildren. This is fundamentally different from a parent consenting to a medical treatment for their sick child, because in that case, the child already exists and has a condition requiring treatment.

Unknown long-term effects. We have decades of data on many conventional medical treatments, and even somatic gene therapies are now accumulating multi-year follow-up data. But the long-term effects of germline edits, playing out across multiple generations, are inherently unknowable at the time the edit is made. Genes interact with one another and with the environment in complex, context-dependent ways. A modification that appears beneficial in the laboratory may have unforeseen consequences that only emerge years or generations later.

The International Moratorium and the Three Summits

The global scientific community has responded to the prospect of heritable human genome editing through a series of international summits and policy statements, though consensus on the details remains elusive.

The First Summit (Washington, D.C., 2015)

The first International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held in December 2015, convened jointly by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the Royal Society of the United Kingdom; and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The summit was prompted by the rapid development of CRISPR technology and the first published reports of CRISPR being used on non-viable human embryos in Chinese laboratories.

The summit's organizing committee concluded that it would be "irresponsible to proceed" with clinical use of germline editing unless and until safety and efficacy issues were resolved, there was broad societal consensus, and appropriate regulatory frameworks were in place. Crucially, the statement did not call for a permanent ban. It left the door open for future clinical applications while emphasizing that the conditions for responsible use had not been met.

The Second Summit (Hong Kong, 2018)

The second summit is remembered primarily for He Jiankui's announcement. The organizing committee's concluding statement called the clinical use of germline editing "deeply disturbing" and said the experiment had been conducted "irresponsibly." The statement reiterated that the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were still insufficient for clinical germline editing and called for an "independent assessment" of He's claims.

The Third Summit (London, 2023)

The third summit, held in March 2023, reflected five more years of scientific progress and policy debate. The organizing committee acknowledged that heritable human genome editing remained premature for clinical application. Notably, the statement emphasized the need for inclusive global dialogue that went beyond the scientific community to include patients, disability advocates, ethicists, social scientists, and the broader public.

Moratorium Calls

In March 2019, a group of prominent scientists, including CRISPR pioneers Eric Lander, Feng Zhang, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, published a commentary in Nature calling for a global moratorium on heritable genome editing. They proposed a voluntary framework in which nations would commit not to approve clinical germline editing for a defined period, during which international discussions about governance would take place.

The call was significant but not universally supported. Some scientists and ethicists argued that a moratorium was too blunt an instrument, potentially impeding valuable basic research. Others worried it could not be enforced and might simply drive work to less regulated jurisdictions. The World Health Organization subsequently established an Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing, which issued its recommendations in 2021. The WHO committee stopped short of calling for a moratorium but recommended the creation of a global registry for gene editing research and called on nations to strengthen their regulatory frameworks.

The Therapeutic-Enhancement Spectrum

One of the most challenging conceptual problems in the designer babies debate is distinguishing between therapeutic applications and enhancement. The line between treating disease and improving upon normal human traits is not as clear as it might first appear.

The Clear Cases

At one end of the spectrum, few would object in principle to editing an embryo to prevent a fatal childhood disease like Tay-Sachs, in which children typically die before age five after progressive neurological deterioration. If germline editing could be performed safely and reliably, the case for preventing such devastating conditions seems strong.

At the other end, editing embryos to give a child blue eyes, increased height, or enhanced athletic ability strikes most people as a misuse of medical technology, driven by parental preference rather than the child's welfare.

The Grey Zone

Between these extremes lies a vast and contentious middle ground. Consider the following scenarios:

• Editing to eliminate a BRCA1 mutation that confers a significantly elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but not certainty of developing either disease.
• Editing to prevent a genetic predisposition to severe depression or bipolar disorder.
• Editing to prevent hereditary deafness in a child whose parents are deaf and may view deafness not as a disability but as a cultural identity.
• Editing to confer resistance to infectious diseases, as He Jiankui claimed to be doing with HIV.
• Editing for traits that are simultaneously associated with disease risk and cognitive or physical advantages, the way some variants linked to higher intelligence also appear to correlate with certain psychiatric conditions.

Each of these cases involves a different calculus of benefit, risk, identity, and values. There is no bright line that neatly separates "therapy" from "enhancement," and reasonable people disagree about where any such line should be drawn.

The Slippery Slope Concern

Critics argue that permitting even clearly therapeutic germline editing creates an inevitable slippery slope toward enhancement. Once the technology is established and accepted for preventing severe genetic diseases, the argument goes, pressure will mount to expand its use to less severe conditions, then to risk reduction, then to optimization of normal traits. Each step may seem individually reasonable, but the cumulative effect is a society in which children are engineered to specification.

Defenders respond that slippery slope arguments are speculative and that strong regulation can maintain boundaries. They point to analogies like IVF and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which were controversial when introduced but are now widely accepted within regulated frameworks, without having led to the dystopian outcomes critics feared.

The Disability Rights Perspective

The disability rights community has raised some of the most important and least heard voices in the designer babies debate. Their concerns challenge assumptions that many non-disabled people take for granted.

The Expressivist Objection

Disability rights scholars have articulated what is known as the "expressivist objection" to genetic selection and editing. The argument holds that selecting against or editing out genetic traits associated with disability sends an inherently negative message about people who live with those conditions. It implies that their lives are not worth living, or at least that they would have been better off without their disability.

This is not an abstract philosophical point. People with disabilities, including those with genetic conditions that might be targets for germline editing, live rich, meaningful, fulfilling lives. Many report levels of life satisfaction comparable to or higher than the non-disabled population. The assumption that a life with a disability is necessarily diminished reflects, disability advocates argue, the prejudices and failures of accommodation of the non-disabled majority, not the inherent experience of the disability itself.

Deafness as a Case Study

The Deaf community provides a particularly illuminating example. Many Deaf people do not consider their deafness a disability at all but rather a cultural identity, complete with its own language (sign language), social institutions, art, and history. The prospect of editing the genome to eliminate hereditary deafness is, from this perspective, not a medical advance but a form of cultural erasure.

This view is not universally held even within the Deaf community, and it complicates simplistic narratives about the desirability of eliminating genetic conditions. It forces us to ask: Who gets to decide which human variations constitute diseases requiring correction, and which are part of the natural spectrum of human diversity?

Neurodiversity

Similar arguments are made by neurodiversity advocates regarding conditions like autism spectrum disorder. Many autistic adults reject the framing of autism as a disease to be cured and instead view it as a different, not deficient, mode of cognitive functioning. If germline editing could prevent autism, would it be therapeutic or would it be eliminating a form of human variation that enriches society?

These are not easy questions, and they become even harder when a condition involves both genuine suffering and genuine value, when a genetic variant brings both challenges and gifts that the affected person would not want to trade away.

Equity Concerns: Genetic Haves and Have-Nots

Perhaps the most frequently raised concern about designer babies is the potential for germline editing to exacerbate existing social inequalities. The worry is straightforward: if genetic enhancement becomes possible, the wealthy will access it first, and possibly exclusively, creating a new axis of inequality rooted in biology itself.

The Access Problem

Advanced reproductive technologies are already expensive and unevenly distributed. A single round of IVF in the United States costs between $15,000 and $30,000, and many insurance plans do not cover it. Preimplantation genetic testing adds additional costs. Germline editing, if it were to become clinically available, would likely be even more expensive, at least initially, given the technical complexity and regulatory requirements involved.

If genetic enhancements for intelligence, health, or longevity were available only to those who could afford them, the result could be a society stratified not just by wealth, education, and social connections, but by genetic endowment. Children of wealthy parents would have not only material advantages but biological ones. Over generations, this could create what some commentators have called a "genetic underclass," a population whose relative disadvantage is literally encoded in their DNA.

Historical Parallels and the Shadow of Eugenics

The designer babies conversation cannot be separated from the history of eugenics. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the eugenics movement sought to improve the human population through selective breeding. In its most benign forms, this involved encouraging "fit" individuals to reproduce. In its most extreme form, it led to forced sterilizations, which were practiced in over 30 U.S. states and in many other countries, and ultimately to the Nazi regime's genocidal programs.

The comparison is not exact. Modern gene editing is a precision tool, not a blunt program of population control, and its proponents typically envision voluntary, individual-level decisions rather than state-imposed mandates. But disability rights advocates and scholars of eugenics history warn that the underlying logic, that some genetic configurations are superior to others and that society should act to promote the "better" ones, has a dark pedigree. The language has changed, they note, from "racial hygiene" to "genetic optimization," but the impulse to engineer human heredity carries echoes of a deeply troubling past.

Global Disparities

The equity problem extends beyond individual countries to the global stage. If germline editing becomes available primarily in wealthy nations, it could deepen the already vast health disparities between the Global North and Global South. Countries that cannot afford the technology would be left further behind, not just economically but biologically, if enhanced populations gained competitive advantages in cognition, health, and longevity.

Regulation by Country

The legal landscape for human germline editing varies significantly around the world, reflecting different cultural values, political systems, and regulatory traditions.

United States

The United States has no explicit federal law banning human germline editing. Instead, a rider attached annually to congressional appropriations bills since 2015, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment's extension, prohibits the FDA from reviewing any application "in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification." This effectively blocks clinical germline editing through the regulatory backdoor of defunding rather than direct prohibition.

However, this approach has limitations. It could be reversed by a future Congress. It does not prohibit research on germline editing that does not involve implantation of edited embryos. And it does not apply to privately funded research that does not seek FDA approval, though any clinical application would require FDA clearance.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a detailed report in 2017 concluding that heritable germline editing might be permissible in the future under strict criteria: only for compelling medical reasons, only when no reasonable alternatives exist, with robust oversight, and with long-term follow-up of any resulting children.

United Kingdom

The UK has one of the world's most developed regulatory frameworks for human embryo research. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulates all research involving human embryos, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 prohibits the implantation of genetically modified embryos for reproductive purposes. Research editing of embryos that are not implanted is permitted under license.

In 2016, the HFEA granted a license to researcher Kathy Niakan at the Francis Crick Institute to use CRISPR on human embryos for basic research purposes, the first such license in the UK. The research was limited to the first seven days of development, and the embryos were not implanted.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an influential advisory body, issued a report in 2018 concluding that heritable genome editing could be "morally permissible" under certain conditions, including that it is consistent with the welfare of the future person and does not increase disadvantage, discrimination, or division in society.

China

China's regulatory framework was widely perceived as inadequate at the time of the He Jiankui affair. While guidelines from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Science and Technology nominally required ethical review for gene editing research, enforcement was weak, and He was able to proceed with minimal oversight.

In the aftermath of the scandal, China significantly tightened its regulations. In 2019, a draft revision of the Biosecurity Law included provisions directly addressing gene editing. The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, which took effect in 2021, explicitly states that medical and research activities related to human genes and embryos must comply with laws and regulations and must not endanger human health, violate ethical norms, or harm public interests. Violations can result in criminal liability.

Japan

Japan prohibits the clinical application of germline editing under guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Basic research on human embryos is permitted under strict conditions, including a requirement that edited embryos not be transferred to a uterus.

Other Countries

Most countries with developed biomedical research sectors have some form of restriction on clinical germline editing, though the mechanisms vary. Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and many other nations prohibit it by law. Some countries have guidelines rather than binding legislation, creating varying degrees of enforceability. A significant number of countries, particularly in the developing world, have no specific regulations addressing germline editing at all.

What Is Actually Feasible vs. Science Fiction

Public discussion of designer babies is often colored by science fiction scenarios that far outstrip current scientific capabilities. It is important to distinguish between what is technically possible now, what might become possible with foreseeable advances, and what remains firmly in the realm of speculation.

What We Can Do Now

CRISPR-Cas9 can make targeted cuts in DNA with reasonable efficiency. For monogenic conditions, those caused by a single gene mutation with high penetrance, it is technically feasible (though not yet safe or approved for clinical use) to edit embryos to correct the causative variant. Conditions like sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, and Tay-Sachs disease are, in principle, addressable at the genetic level.

However, even for these relatively straightforward cases, significant technical barriers remain. Off-target effects, in which CRISPR cuts at unintended locations in the genome, remain a concern. Mosaicism, in which not all cells receive the intended edit, is common in embryo editing. And for many monogenic conditions, preimplantation genetic testing during IVF already offers an alternative path, allowing parents to select embryos that do not carry the disease-causing variant without editing the genome at all.

What Might Become Possible

Advances in base editing and prime editing are steadily improving the precision and versatility of genome editing. These newer techniques can make specific single-letter changes in DNA without creating double-strand breaks, reducing the risk of off-target effects and unintended rearrangements. As these tools mature, the safety profile of embryo editing could improve substantially.

It is also plausible that editing for some polygenic traits, those influenced by many genes, could become technically feasible in the medium term, though with significant limitations. For example, if a small number of genetic variants with relatively large effects on a trait like height or disease risk are identified, editing those specific variants might be achievable. This would not fully determine the trait but could shift the probability distribution.

What Remains Science Fiction

The popular image of designer babies, in which parents select from a menu of traits including eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, personality, and musical talent, remains far from reality.

Most traits that people associate with "designing" a baby are highly polygenic, influenced by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each with a tiny effect. Intelligence, for example, is associated with thousands of genetic variants, and the largest genome-wide association studies explain only a fraction of the variance in cognitive ability. Even if every relevant variant could be identified, editing thousands of loci in an embryo simultaneously is far beyond current or foreseeable capabilities.

Furthermore, most complex traits are significantly influenced by environmental factors, from prenatal nutrition to education to social environment. Genetic editing cannot control for these variables. The idea of genetically engineering a genius, an elite athlete, or a child with a specific personality type is not just ethically fraught but scientifically naive.

Even seemingly simple traits like eye color are more genetically complex than commonly assumed. While a few major genes (particularly OCA2 and HERC2) have large effects, numerous additional variants contribute to the full spectrum of iris pigmentation.

What the Experts Say

The scientific and ethical community is not monolithic on the question of germline editing, and the range of views reflects the genuine difficulty of the issues involved.

Jennifer Doudna, co-developer of CRISPR-Cas9 and Nobel laureate, has called for caution and robust governance while acknowledging the potential therapeutic value of germline editing for severe genetic diseases. In her book A Crack in Creation, she described being haunted by a dream in which Hitler asked her to explain the technology's applications.

George Church, a geneticist at Harvard, has taken a more permissive stance, arguing that germline editing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that a blanket moratorium could impede valuable research. He has also noted that naturally occurring human genetic variation is far more extensive than anything gene editing is likely to introduce.

Françoise Baylis, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University and author of Altered Inheritance, has argued that the germline editing debate must center equity and justice. She contends that decisions about altering the human germline should not be left to scientists, bioethicists, and wealthy nations alone but must involve broad public deliberation, including voices from marginalized communities and the Global South.

Hille Haker, a Catholic moral theologian, has argued for an unconditional prohibition on germline editing, contending that it violates the dignity and autonomy of future persons and that no therapeutic justification can override these fundamental concerns.

Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist at the University of Oxford, has advanced the controversial "principle of procreative beneficence," arguing that parents have a moral obligation to select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life. Under this framework, genetic enhancement could be not merely permissible but morally required.

These divergent views reflect genuinely different philosophical commitments about risk, autonomy, justice, and the proper relationship between humans and their biology.

Looking Ahead

The designer babies question is not going away. Technical capabilities continue to advance. Public interest and anxiety continue to grow. And the fundamental ethical tensions, between parental freedom and children's autonomy, between curing disease and enhancing traits, between individual choice and social equality, remain unresolved.

Several developments in the coming years will shape how this conversation evolves:

Improved editing technologies. As base editing, prime editing, and other next-generation tools mature, the safety arguments against germline editing will gradually weaken. This will shift the debate from "we can't do it safely" to "should we do it at all," a harder question.

Growing somatic editing experience. As more patients receive somatic gene therapies, the accumulating safety and efficacy data will build familiarity and comfort with genetic medicine, potentially reducing public resistance to germline applications.

International governance. Whether the world can develop a coherent, enforceable framework for governing germline editing will be critical. Without one, the risk of future rogue experiments, or of "reproductive tourism" to permissive jurisdictions, remains high.

Public engagement. The degree to which ordinary citizens, not just scientists and ethicists, are meaningfully involved in decision-making will determine whether any eventual policy commands broad legitimacy.

There are no easy answers. The prospect of eliminating devastating genetic diseases is genuinely compelling. The risks of a new eugenics, of deepening inequality, of making irreversible changes to the human gene pool without the consent of those most affected, are genuinely alarming. Navigating between these imperatives will require not just scientific expertise but wisdom, humility, and a commitment to inclusive dialogue.

The children He Jiankui brought into the world did not choose to be at the center of this debate. They deserve privacy, support, and the opportunity to live their lives free of the spotlight. But the questions their existence raises belong to all of us.

---

Sources

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. The National Academies Press, 2017.

2. Cyranoski, D. "The CRISPR-baby scandal: what's next for human gene-editing." Nature 566, 440-442 (2019).

3. Lander, E.S. et al. "Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing." Nature 567, 165-168 (2019).

4. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Issues. 2018.

5. World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. Human Genome Editing: Recommendations. WHO, 2021.

6. Doudna, J.A. and Sternberg, S.H. A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

7. Baylis, F. Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing. Harvard University Press, 2019.

8. Organizing Committee of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing. "Statement." The Royal Society, London, March 2023.

9. He, J. et al. Manuscript data presented at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, Hong Kong, November 2018.

10. Greely, H.T. "CRISPR'd babies: human germline genome editing in the 'He Jiankui affair.'" Journal of Law and the Biosciences 6(1), 111-183 (2019).

11. Savulescu, J. "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children." Bioethics 15(5-6), 413-426 (2001).

12. Parens, E. and Asch, A. "Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing: Reflections and Recommendations." Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 9, 40-47 (2003).

13. Regalado, A. "Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies." MIT Technology Review, November 25, 2018.

14. Musunuru, K. The CRISPR Generation: The Story of the World's First Gene-Edited Babies. BookBaby, 2019.

15. International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. Heritable Human Genome Editing. National Academies Press, 2020.