Recently, American and South Korean scientists claimed to have modified the genes of embryos at the earliest stage of development, with unprecedented precision. The researchers used this to call for a “public conversation” about the ethical implications of this practice.
A technique that could replace CRISPR scissors
For more than two decades, the CRISPR genetic scissors have allowed us to “cut” and “move” segments of genetic material. While the vast majority of trials have been conducted on animals, early trials on humans have emerged, notably targeting sickle cell disease (also known as drepanocytosis), a genetic and hereditary blood disorder. Nevertheless, CRISPR scissors are not perfect and can introduce errors, which today theoretically opens the door to another technique: base editing.
A team of researchers from the Department of Pediatrics at Columbia University in New York (United States) and the Institute for Basic Science in Daejeon (South Korea) highlighted base editing in a preprint on the ArXiv platform on June 1, 2026. According to the authors, the technique has allowed replacement of individual “genetic letters” in DNA rather than entire sequences. And this represents a major scientific breakthrough.
In fact, base editing can be compared to a pencil and an eraser capable of rewriting the genetic code letter by letter. These letters are A, C, G and T, composing the genetic code of any life on Earth. However, given that the human genetic code contains roughly three billion letters, CRISPR scissors could commit mistakes and cause significant collateral damage. Base editing is therefore far more precise because it involves chemically modifying a single letter, without having to cut both strands of the double helix.
Inviting civil society to decide
The researchers of this study, which, it should be noted, is still awaiting peer validation, stressed the following: base editing still has a long way to go before it could conceivably lead to adoption. While awaiting validation of their results, the scientists call for a “public conversation.” In other words, the authors contend that civil society should decide whether base editing should be used to modify the human species.
“As a scientist, you can provide data for the discussion, but then you stop and let others take over.“, said Dieter Egli, the lead author of the work, in an article for the New York Times.
It should be noted that this appeal rests on controversy at several levels. To cite one, there is a blurring of the boundary between the possibility of curing a serious genetic disease and the one of enhancing physical or intellectual abilities—so-called “designer babies.” Furthermore, it should be understood that modifications to embryonic germline will be transmitted to all descendants of these future individuals, thereby altering the human genetic heritage in the long term. Finally, some bioethicists view this call for public discussion with strong disapproval. They accuse scientists of absolving themselves of moral responsibility by letting the public decide and, above all, manage potential harmful consequences in the event that base editing is adopted.
