We Already Legalized "Designer Babies" Decades Ago — We Just Didn't Call Them That
In June 2026, Columbia University's Dieter Egli research team published a bioRxiv preprint documenting the successful application of base editing to human embryos, achieving precise correction of disease-causing genetic variants including PCSK9 and HBG1/2, with some embryos reaching 100% editing efficiency — reigniting the global designer baby debate that had largely quieted since the 2018 He Jiankui scandal. Unlike conventional CRISPR-Cas9, which physically severs both DNA strands and introduces unpredictable repair artifacts, base editing chemically converts a single nucleotide without cutting the helix, representing a qualitative leap in precision that earlier human germline editing attempts lacked entirely. Despite the technical advance, mosaicism — the uneven distribution of edits across embryonic cells — remains unresolved, and the involvement of consumer genomics company Nucleus Genomics as a funder raises legitimate questions about whether the research's ultimate destination is therapy or commercial genetic enhancement. The American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy and the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy responded with a joint 10-year moratorium on germline editing, a move that is symbolically significant but carries zero legal enforcement power, extending a familiar pattern of paper prohibitions that failed to stop He Jiankui eight years ago. If this technology commercializes before robust international regulation is in place, the most likely outcome is access gated entirely by wealth — embedding health inequality at the DNA level and initiating what would be the first biologically encoded class divide in human history.