The Legal Debates Surrounding Gene-Editing Technologies
- UCL Law for All Society
- Dec 20, 2025
- 4 min read
By Emma Wrenn
Introduction
Genetic technology has developed drastically since the first cloned mammal Dolly the sheep was born in 1996. Gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR have diverse applications, from improving the climate-resilience of crops to curing genetic diseases. However, legal debates surrounding the safety and ethics of gene-editing have been pertinent throughout this technological innovation.
Gene Editing
As population growth, climate change and low commercial crop biodiversity threaten the global food supply, genetic technology could be a useful, perhaps even necessary, tool in the future of agriculture. Genetic technology can increase crop yields through pesticide and herbicide resistance, as well as improve the crop’s nutritional quality to combat nutrient deficiencies. However, anti-genetic modification activists, including large international environmental charities such as Greenpeace, have advocated concerns surrounding the potential environmental and health consequences of these crops. A prime example of such protest was the 2013 March Against Monsanto, an international campaign against genetically modified crops which began in response to the failed ballot measure California Proposition 37. This proposition would have required labelling of commercially sold genetically modified food. Corporations such as Kraft Foods and Pepsi Co donated millions to campaign against the proposition.
Today, genetically modified foods in the USA are required to be labelled as ‘bioengineered’ following the 2022 enforcement of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. Chinese, UK and EU law similarly requires the labelling of genetically modified food. However, the USA has no national legislation regulating the genetic modification of plants itself; the Food and Drug Administration ensures the product is safe for consumption, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates the use of herbicides and pesticide alongside the genetically modified crop, and the Department of Agriculture ensures the modified crop is not harmful to other crops. This starkly contrasts EU law, where Directive 2001/18/EC requires public consultation and regular monitoring of the product after the crop has been approved. In fact, the US has the world’s largest area of genetically modified crops. As of 2020, over 50% of US cropland was growing genetically modified crops.
Gene Editing in Humans
Gene-editing technology has expanded the capabilities of modern medicine to treat a wide range of diseases. One such technology, CRISPR Cas-9, has made gene-editing cheaper, easier and faster than ever before. For sufferers of genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and beta thalassemia, innovations in gene-editing can offer life-changing treatment. This treatment typically involves somatic genome editing, and the DNA changes cannot be passed on to the patient’s children.
Much more controversially, germ-line gene editing (GGE) introduces or removes heritable traits by editing egg, sperm or embryo DNA. This prevents parents passing on genes for debilitating genetic diseases, and potentially other heritable disabilities such as blindness or deafness. Currently, known carriers of genetic diseases can use Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) to only implant embryos without the condition during IVF. Nevertheless, this technique is often ineffective when identifying genetic diseases caused by multiple genes. Parents without access to expensive and often unsuccessful IVF treatment, however, may have to undergo invasive diagnostic tests, and confront the difficult and traumatic decision of whether to abort the fetus to prevent its suffering after birth.
The first genetically modified babies were born in 2018 after Chinese scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR to make twin girls resistant to HIV. This led to his arrest and imprisonment for medical malpractice. As a novel medical treatment method, many raised concerns about the unknown future side effects of GGE, which would not only affect the twin girls, but potentially their children and descendants. In fact, the National Institute of Health, an American health research funding body, justified their decision not to fund research into GGE because it “affects the next generation without their consent”. On the other hand, bioethicists Christopher Gyngell, Thomas Douglas and Julian Savulescu argue that the potential benefit of GGE on the health of future generations makes the technology “both morally permissible and morally desirable” [1].
Some oppose GGE over fears that the technology could exacerbate prejudice and social inequality. Disability scholar Rosemarie Garland-Thomson labels the use of GGE to prevent genetic conditions as “velvet eugenics” with “a goal of purging unacceptable human variations”. There is also the possibility that GGE could develop to the point that parents with access to it could select traits such as intelligence for their ‘designer babies’. This scenario would widen socioeconomic inequalities, potentially even leading to a genetically stratified society as depicted in Aeolus Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World.
Currently, no country explicitly permits germline gene editing to create a child. Under UK law, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act bans the genetic modification of embryos except for specifically permitted research purposes. The only exception is mitochondrial DNA, which can be modified in developing embryos to prevent severe mitochondrial disease.
Conclusion
Genetic technology could transform the health of humans and our planet, alleviating the threat of climate change and eradicating suffering posed by severe genetic diseases. Alternatively, it could incentivise the overuse of toxic pesticides and introduce dangerous changes to familial bloodlines. Much of the current legal regulation of gene technology is cautious of its use. However, perhaps some regulations will ease as gene technology develops to include more beneficial applications.
Sources:
Edited by Artyom Timofeev
Comments