Explore the vast range of titles available.

He Jiankui gives talk about controversial claim of genome editing babies, but ethical questions remain. He Jiankui gives talk about controversial claim of genome editing babies, but ethical questions remain. He Jiankui talks at a podium during his presentation on the 28th November.

During the second World Summit of Human Gene Editing, Jiankui He presented the gene-editing project that led to the birth of two baby girls with man-made C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) mutations. This extremely irresponsible behavior violated the ethical consensus of scientists all over the world. His presentation revealed a troubling lack not only of basic medical ethics but also of the requisite understanding of genetics and gene editing. Here, we review the rationale and design of his experiment along with the presented data, and provide our scientific criticism of this misconduct.

The announcement of He Jiankui's germline editing of human embryos has been followed by a torrent of almost universal criticism of the claim on scientific and ethical grounds. That criticism is warranted. There is little room for anything other than vociferous condemnation of He's announcement. Presenting the results of groundbreaking work by press conference and YouTube is not science. The issue now is not whether the work supporting the claims reported from China was done in an ethical manner. It was not. What is required to move forward is a justification for doing germline editing in humans. Many think there is none, and prohibitions abound. If such work is justifiable, a serious, rigorous framework must be imposed that insures that such research is done following the highest ethical standards that both protect human subjects and insure public trust and support.

As various advisory bodies, scientific organizations and funding agencies deliberate on genome editing in humans, Debra J. H. Mathews, Robin Lovell-Badge and colleagues lay out some key points for consideration.

EU legislation prohibits clinical trials that modify germ line 'genetic identity'. 'Genetic identity' however, is left undefined. This study aims to identify the use of the term 'genetic identity' in academic literature, and investigate its relevance for debates on genetic modification. A total of 616 articles that contained the term were identified. Content analysis revealed that the term was used in various and contradicting ways and a clear understanding of the term is lacking. This review demonstrates that the EU legislation is open to interpretation, because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is currently used. Because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is used and understood, further reflection is needed. This requires further medical, legal, ethical and social debate and a coordinated response at both a European and a global level.

Genome-editing presents many opportunities. But the advent of human-germline editing brings urgency to ethical discussions, says Jennifer Doudna.

Genome editing uses enzymes that are targeted to sequences of DNA to make cuts. These cuts are then repaired by the cell's machinery. This technology allows scientists to disrupt or modify genes with unprecedented precision. By Amy Maxmen, infographic by Denis Mallet.

Last month, one of the top intelligence officials in the United States warned that genome-editing technology is now a potential weapon of mass destruction. Techniques such as the emerging CRISPR-Cas9 system, US director of national intelligence James Clapper warned in an annual threat-assessment report to the US Senate, should be listed as dangers alongside nuclear tests in North Korea or clandestine chemical weapons in Syria (see go.nature.com/jxuyev).

The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM; in which E.L., M.W. and S.E.H. are involved), is an international organization that represents more than 200 life-sciences companies, research institutions, non-profit organizations, patient-advocacy groups and investors focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics, including those involving genome editing. Philosophically or ethically justifiable applications for this technology - should any ever exist - are moot until it becomes possible to demonstrate safe outcomes and obtain reproducible data over multiple generations. Because of such concerns - as well as for serious ethical reasons - some countries discouraged or prohibited this type of research a decade before the technical feasibility of germline modification was confirmed in rats in 2009 (ref. 9).