Open to Debate Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies?
17 snips
Apr 23, 2026 
Françoise Baylis, bioethicist questioning limits of heritable genomics. Marcy Darnovsky, policy advocate warning of social harms. Amy Webb, futurist arguing for prevention and resilience. George Church, geneticist urging regulated use to reduce disease. They debate safety, equity, governance, geopolitics, and what it even means to make a child "better."
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Gene Editing As Regulated Medical Progress
- George Church argues gene editing should be used to make babies healthier, framing it as regulation not prohibition should guide risky tech like cars.
- He cites CAR-T for infants, COVID adenoviral vaccines, prenatal Gaucher's trials, and Rett gene therapy as precedents for safe, beneficial use.
Germline Editing Risks and Existing Alternatives
- Marcy Darnovsky warns reproductive (germline) gene editing is unsafe now and would worsen social and economic inequalities.
- She emphasizes existing alternatives: donor gametes or embryo screening can prevent passing on disease without altering descendants' DNA.
Editing Gives Optionality Against Disease and Threats
- Amy Webb frames gene editing as optionality and resilience, arguing we can 'read and debug' life to prevent disease and protect against pathogens.
- She cautions against catastrophizing and calls for developing safeguards and governance rather than halting progress.