Prominent science policy reports that set the stage for the recent Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing all raise questions about human enhancement. Enhancement concerns also consistently loom large...

The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing is being held in London this week. Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui’s illegal experimentation with heritable human genome editing, announced at the Second International Summit in Hong Kong four years ago, will haunt some of the discussions. To what extent has the Chinese bioethics community addressed gaps exposed by the Crispr Baby scandal and prepared to prevent similar future scenarios?

The American chestnut is basically defunct, unless science can rescue it. Genetic manipulation may be the answer.

Over the last two years, China has updated some regulations on human genetic engineering and assisted reproduction and established a national committee to guide and supervise bioethics nationwide. But there are legal gaps in some of the regulations and tension between competing values: the desire to encourage new research and to potentially inhibit it by imposing stricter ethics regulations.

The bioethics and legal communities must come together to find ways to move with the same ease of the scientific research community--to transcend the geopolitical borders and jurisdictional concerns that make international regulation so difficult.

Professionals and the public in China first learned of the jail sentence of He Jiankui from the report of Xinhua News Agency. No information, including any interpretation, was provided by the Court. But the reported words of the sentence are so ambiguous as to leave room for different interpretations. We believe that the public has the right to know more than Xinhua News Agency reported.

Neither one of us expected to be talking about Hannah Arendt at the Vatican. We had been invited to give talks at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the scientific and ethical challenges posed by personalized medicine. Walking across the cobblestones of St. Peter’s Square we began to discuss how society regulates biomedical research. Are institutional review boards capable of dealing with innovations like personalized medicine? Are they too bound by regulations? Can they ask larger questions of meaning when simply following the rules won't suffice? And most worrisome, has their bureaucratic function caused them to mistake regulatory compliance for ethical reflection?

Last month, an international commission convened to consider whether and how germline editing – changing the genes passed on to children and future generations -- should proceed. The discussions focused mainly on the safety risks of the technology, which, while important, are not the only issues to consider. Any conversation regarding germline editing must also honestly and thoroughly assess the potential benefits of the technology, which, for several reasons, are more limited than generally acknowledged.

What would it take for the first case of gene editing of a human embryo, egg, or sperm to proceed in the U.S.? Many legal and ethical hurdles involving clinical trials, for starters.