Embryo Editing Advance
Columbia University develops new genetic editing method for embryos, reigniting 'designer babies' debate
Anonymous
Scientists at Columbia University have developed a new way to edit human embryo DNA that does not cut the genetic code — and it works. The team, led by Dr. Dieter Egli, published their findings on bioRxiv on June 1, 2026, showing zero chromosomal damage in edited embryos. The breakthrough has reignited fierce debate about so-called "designer babies."
Unlike CRISPR, which acts like molecular scissors by cutting both strands of DNA, this technique — called **base editing** — works more like a pencil. It chemically rewrites a single DNA letter without breaking the DNA backbone. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal both broke the story on June 4–5, 2026, calling it a major shift in genetic medicine.
From Molecular Scissors to a Genetic Pencil
For a decade, CRISPR-Cas9 dominated gene editing. But Columbia's own research in 2020 revealed a serious flaw: human embryos often cannot repair the double-strand DNA cuts CRISPR makes. The result was "chromosomal mayhem" — large-scale deletions that left embryos non-viable or genetically unstable.
Base editing, first developed by David Liu's lab at the Broad Institute around 2016, sidesteps this problem entirely. It converts one DNA letter into another — for example, changing a C to a T — without snapping the DNA strand. In the Columbia study, the team achieved nearly 99% accuracy in successfully edited cells. They detected zero large-scale chromosomal deletions, a stark contrast to earlier CRISPR results.
Two Target Genes and an 80% Mosaicism Problem
The Columbia team focused on two gene targets. The first was **PCSK9**, which controls cholesterol and is linked to heart disease risk. The second was **HBG1/HBG2**, genes tied to fetal hemoglobin that could help treat blood disorders like thalassemia. Both edits were delivered into human embryos in the lab.
But a critical problem remains. In 80% of treated embryos, only *some* cells were edited — a condition called **mosaicism**. This means a child born from such an embryo would still carry the disease mutation in many of their cells. Scientists who are skeptical of the headlines point to this figure as proof the technique is not yet ready for clinical use.
Designer Baby Fears Return as Ethics Experts Sound Alarm
The ghost of **He Jiankui** — the Chinese scientist jailed in 2018 for creating the world's first CRISPR babies — hangs over the study. Critics argue that making embryo editing safer does not reduce risk. It raises it. If the main barrier to misuse was safety, removing that barrier opens the door to editing for traits like height or intelligence. "Editing human embryos for reproduction remains unacceptably risky," said Katie Hasson of the Center for Genetics and Society.
Stanford bioethicist Hank Greely warned that wealthy individuals might use the study "as a jumping-off point to base-edit their embryos" for non-medical reasons. The involvement of Nathan Treff — a co-author and co-founder of DNA startup **Nucleus Genomics** — has sharpened those concerns, suggesting a pathway from academic lab to commercial fertility clinic could develop faster than regulation can keep up.
Egli Urges Caution But Keeps Door Open
Dr. Egli has tried to temper the excitement. "We're not saying this is going to be used tomorrow in the clinics," he said. "That is a process that can occur through discussion matched with scientific progress." The study is still a preprint, meaning it has not yet passed full peer review.
Fertility expert Dr. Paula Amato of Oregon Health & Science University said she is "generally supportive" of the concept for preventing genetic disease. But the 80% mosaicism rate means the gap between lab success and clinical reality remains wide. Most experts agree: the science is moving fast, and the ethics debate has not caught up.
Sentiment
NeutralNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
4
Articles
0
Reach
4
A
AnonymousAuthor
