Recently, it was reported that the panel convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop standards and guidelines for gene editing will ask the WHO to establish a registry for any projects on heritable human gene editing. The idea is that, to get research funding, a project would have to be registered, and there would be a required review in order to get on the registry in the first place. The net effect would be to control the flow of money to such projects.
Also, according to Nature, the Chinese government is looking at amending its civil code, effective March 2020, to in essence make a gene editor liable for health outcomes by declaring that “experiments on genes in adults or embryos that endanger human health or violate ethical norms can accordingly be seen as a violation of a person’s fundamental rights.” The idea here appears to be to make gene editors think twice about whether they are sure enough of their work to accept essentially a permanent risk of being sued for all they are worth if anything goes wrong in the future. Your correspondent knows nothing about Chinese civil procedure, but in the litigious U.S., the risk of really big, unpredictable lawsuits at some entirely unpredictable time in the future, with no limit, can make even big companies shy to pursue something.
So maybe these approaches, by “following the money,” as it were, would at least slow down heritable genome editing, short of a ban. Skeptics of the utility or wisdom of a ban argue that the “rogues” will just find work-arounds anyway, and that entire states can “go rogue,” limiting the effects of the ban to only the nations willing to enact and enforce it.
That’s a reasonable argument, but it still seems that, by only requiring a registry—with noncompliance always a risk—or trying to up the ante in court—a risk that some entities might take if the perceived reward is big enough to warrant it, and they can hire enough expansive lawyers to limit the risk—there is an admission that heritable genome editing is going to go forward. And, indeed, maybe there’s no stopping it. But it seems like promoting a stance toward human life that refuses to accept heritable gene editing is still something we should do.