De definitieve gids voor genbewerking.
★
Menu
Home Leren Nieuws Vraag de Atlas
Verkennen Technologieën Ziekten Behandelingen Klinische onderzoeken Bedrijven Wetenschappers Genen Onderzoek Instellingen
Verder dan geneeskunde Landbouw Ethiek Investeren Wereldkaart
Leren & Tools Begin hier Woordenlijst A–Z Vergelijk technologieën Tijdlijn Lijsten & Rankings AI-agents ★ Opgeslagen API
Over Over ons Methodologie Databronnen Redactioneel beleid Contact Disclaimers

🧭 Begeleide weergave
Nieuw in de genetica? We leggen elk begrip uit terwijl je bladert, in gewone taal. Dezelfde pagina's, met de hulp ingebouwd.

⚡ Expertvisie
Je kent de biologie al. Alleen de inhoud — helder en compact, zonder extra uitleg. Dit is de standaardweergave.

Interfacetaal
Lichte modus

Ethiek · Human editing

Enhancement and 'designer babies'

The question of editing for traits rather than disease — where the science is much weaker than the debate assumes.

How this page is written The Atlas does not take a position on contested ethical questions. Each page sets out the strongest version of the arguments on each side, states what is scientifically settled and what is not, and summarises the law where it exists. Where we think a claim is factually wrong — as opposed to ethically contested — we say so and cite the evidence.

De vraag, eenvoudig gesteld

'Designer babies' usually means choosing a child's intelligence, height, appearance or athletic ability. The ethical debate is serious, but it runs far ahead of the biology: traits like intelligence and height involve thousands of genetic variants each contributing a tiny amount, interacting with environment in ways nobody can predict. There is no gene to edit for these things. The realistic near-term question is narrower and more uncomfortable — the boundary between preventing disease and choosing preferences.

Enhancement editing would target traits rather than pathology. Polygenic architecture makes most desired traits inaccessible to editing: educational attainment and height involve thousands of variants of individually minute effect, with substantial gene-environment interaction and pleiotropy. Even were germline editing safe, the technical premise of trait selection by editing is largely unsupported. The practically pressing question is where disease prevention ends — deafness, achondroplasia and autism are each understood very differently by different communities.

The arguments

Wat voorstanders beweren
  • Parents already shape children's traits through education, nutrition, medicine and environment; genetic means are not obviously different in kind.
  • A firm line between therapy and enhancement is hard to draw — vaccination enhances immunity beyond the natural baseline and is uncontroversial.
  • If a safe intervention reduced the risk of a serious late-life disease, refusing it on principle may be harder to defend than permitting it.
Wat critici beweren
  • The polygenic reality means promised enhancements are largely unachievable, so the debate risks legitimising claims that cannot be delivered.
  • Selecting traits imposes one generation's preferences on people who cannot object.
  • Access would follow wealth, and heritable advantage compounds in a way no other inequality does.
  • Defining some human variations as defects to be edited out is a judgement disabled communities have consistently and forcefully rejected.
  • Pleiotropy means editing for one trait may alter others unpredictably — the same variants often do several things at once.

Where the science actually stands

Complex traits are highly polygenic. Predicting the effect of editing a small number of variants on intelligence, personality or physical performance is not currently possible, and no evidence indicates otherwise. Debate about enhancement is therefore about a capability that does not exist — which does not make the debate pointless, but does mean claims of imminent capability should be treated sceptically.

Unresolved questions

  • Where disease ends and preference begins, in conditions that communities themselves define differently.
  • Whether prohibitions could hold if the capability ever became real.
  • How to weigh reducing suffering against reducing human variation.

Sources

Written by The CRISPR Atlas editorial team Last updated Aug 25, 2026