Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Should genetically modifying babies be legal?
Position‹2 of 2
No, genetically modifying babies should not be legal
Argument‹2 of 3›

The majority of scientists think that this is a bad idea

We should heed the voices of scientific experts warning against this procedure's possible drawbacks.

The argument

Although some scientists perceive human gene editing as an exciting possibility, many others condemn the practice as extreme. During the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, organizers concluded that a scientist's creation of the world's first gene-edited babies was "disturbing" and "irresponsible." The Center for Genetics and Society argues that this practice holds the frightening potential to change the inheritable traits of humans, which warrants the procedure's widespread rejection. Accordingly, more than forty countries have outlawed the procedure. If the scientific community features such a strong rejection of this practice, we must trust their consensus and condemn the genetic modification of babies.

Premises

[P1]Many scientists condemn human gene editing as extreme; the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing called the first gene-edited babies "disturbing" and "irresponsible." [P2] The Center for Genetics and Society warns the practice could alter humans' inheritable traits, and more than forty countries have outlawed it, reflecting a strong scientific consensus against it. [C] Therefore, because the majority of scientists reject it, genetically modifying babies should not be legal.

Counter-arguments

In the past, the scientific community has condemned important medical breakthroughs. Because the majority have rejected progress before, the scientific community's scorn of genetic modification is not a good reason to abandon the project.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The argument assumes that the scientific community's opinion on this matter is trustworthy.