Fears the extraordinary advances in genome editing might resurrect the immoral idea of creating a new "Master Race" has prompted prominent scientists to call for a worldwide ban on a new gene editing technique that might make this nightmare scenario possible.

Scientists from the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) have called for a worldwide moratorium on the use of a new gene editing technique called "CRISPR/Cas9" that could alter human DNA across generations. They fear the technique might be used in unsafe or unethical ways.

Like Us on Facebook

Nobel Laureates David Baltimore of the California Institute of Technology and Paul Berg of Stanford University and 16 other medical experts have banded together to issue a warning against CRISPR/Cas9.

The petitioners urge a worldwide moratorium on using gene editing methods to genetically engineer the human genome in a way that can be inherited.

They warned "scientists should avoid even attempting, in lax jurisdictions, germline genome modification for clinical application in humans" until the full implications "are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations".

CRISPR/Cas9 is so scientifically simple, cheap and powerful it's widely seen as a promising key to treating serious genetic diseases and AIDS and many cancers.

CRISPR/Cas9 is a bacteria-derived system that uses RNA molecules that recognize specific human DNA sequences. The RNAs act as guides, matching the nuclease to corresponding locations in the human genome.

CRISPR/Cas9 is the simplest genome-editing tool to work with because it relies on RNA-DNA base pairing, rather than the engineering of proteins that bind particular DNA sequences.

It's already inspired the start of a new biotechnology industry. The technique was developed by researchers at the University of Berkeley.

The scientists demanding the ban believe CRISPR/Cas9 could also be applied to enhance human genetic traits and raises serious ethical concerns. It's bound to reignite the debate on the morality of engineering "designer babies" and almost perfect human beings that are disease free, more intelligent and physiologically superior.

"Given the speed with which the genome engineering field is evolving, our group concluded that there is an urgent need for open discussion of the merits and risks of human genome modification by a broad cohort of scientists, clinicians, social scientists, the general public and relevant public entities and interest groups. We must ban attempts to create genetically altered humans before the technique is fully understood," said the petitioners.

Many countries have already banned any DNA editing that can be passed from one generation to the next. The United States has regulations that hold back such developments from being realized for years or decades.

Laws in some nations, however, could allow for the creation of 'designer babies' in the near future, driving the authors to call for a moratorium on research from scientists.

"You could exert control over human heredity with this technique, and that is why we are raising the issue. Some countries have poor regulation or none at all. The proposed ban was designed to keep people from doing anything crazy," added Baltimore.

The report calling the ban was published in the journal, Science.

Another group of scientists also called for a ban on the technique in the journal, Nature.

This group said "genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications. We are concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making genetic changes that cannot be inherited."

This group is led by Edward Lanphier, chairman of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington, DC, and also consists of Fyodor Urnov, Sarah Ehlen Haecker, Michael Werner and Joanna Smolenski.

Thy further argue that at "this early stage, scientists should agree not to modify the DNA of human reproductive cells. Should a truly compelling case ever arise for the therapeutic benefit of germ­line modification, we encourage an open discussion around the appropriate course of action".