Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: The Therapeutic Fallacy and the "Most Unusual Case"

In the current agon between those promoting and opposing the development of human reproductive applications of genome editing techniques, the bone of contention is often whether the prospective reproductive technologies answer an "unmet medical need." Proponents often point to highly unusual cases of inherited genetic conditions as exhibiting that need. This essay argues that we ought to admit that the opponents are correct: human reproductive genome editing cannot be justified on medical grounds. Taking a deliberately provocative line, the essay suggests how inscribing such practices within a conventional model of biomedical research fails to take proper account of the interrelated interests in play, including those of the wider society and its future members. It also obscures important questions about how the public significance and value of human genome editing are produced through the dynamic encounter between science, technology, and social morality. This has certain discomfiting implications that will require both courage and humility to confront and-finally, perhaps-to embrace.