A case against a moratorium on germline gene editing

Reflecting on Lander et al.’s call for a moratorium on human germline gene editing, biomedical ethicist G. Owen Schaefer makes several arguments why a moratorium is neither desirable nor necessary while also emphasizing the importance of greater public deliberation. Interestingly, he includes whether to impose a moratorium on human germline gene editing research as a decision that should require public input. He also makes the argument that a moratorium is not necessary because there is already broad agreement about unreadiness for clinical trials at this point, because moratoria are arbitrary “blunt instrument[s],” and because moratoria are redundant where laws and regulations already prohibit such experiments.