The Prospect of Polygenic Genome Editing for Human Ethical Policy Change and the Challenges of Human Genetic Editing (Hadronic Gene Editing)

This would be a huge achievement. The limitations and challenges of the study were also discussed by the authors. The fear that polygenic gene editing could be used for eugenics looms large among them, and is, in part, why no country currently allows genome editing in a human embryo, even for single variants.

Scientists know about tens of thousands of DNA variants that are associated with human diseases. The majority of these variations have small effects on their own. The result can be substantial if taken together. The effects of modifying multiple variants at once, known as polygenic genome editing, is the subject of an analysis published this week in Nature (P. M. Visscher et al. The journal Nature was published in the year 2025.

ethical challenges are raised by the prospect of HPE. One significant concern is that HPE will lead to renewed interest in eugenics3. The eugenics movement arose in Victorian Britain aiming to ‘improve’ the gene pool of future generations, essentially by advocating government policies that would lead to people such as those in the movement leaving more offspring31. Positive eugenics is what this kind of eugenics is called. Some countries have adopted Negative Eugenics policies, which have imposed unethical restrictions on peoples’ individual liberties to prevent them from reproducing. Intellectual disability, psychiatric diseases, criminality and poverty were targets of the eugenics movement in Germany, other parts of Europe, Canada, Australia and the USA from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. The Nazi’s policies were based on race and included mass murder and other human rights abuses. The reincarnation of previous eugenics practices could happen in the 21st century. It could be used if it is used by non-democratic state actors.

Although collectivist considerations should inform the values of governments and the goals they pursue, it is also important that these goals do not override basic human rights, such as the right to autonomy. The pursuit of collectivist goals is compatible with basic human rights.

Collective welfarism is an alternative ethical perspective. According to this approach, the goal of technology is to benefit both individuals and groups of individuals including families, communities and societies. From this perspective, it is also important that HPE not be implemented in ways that decrease social cohesion, increase division and weaken our communities and society. Notably, this approach requires further analysis of what constitutes flourishing societies.

There are no easy solutions to these problems, so it’s vital that we start to think about the consequences now, while HPE is still many years away.

It may be more difficult to control the implications of international inequality. Many countries are unlikely to have the ability to use HPE. If high-income countries use HPE, this could result in polygenic diseases becoming even more concentrated in developing countries.

It is possible to limit the use of HPE to cases in which there is a relationship between a trait and positive effects on well-being. It raises a problem of which well-being to use and is a problem for any welfarist approach.

There is currently a way to test for the type of embryo that was created. It is possible for embryos to undergo genetic testing to prevent a serious disease. The line between health and disease is not always straight. Is HPE being used to reduce blood pressure, a risk factor for common diseases, medical or non-medical application? What is the question about vaccines and other preventative interventions? In extreme cases, polygenic editing can be used to delay normal human ageing, significantly prolonging human life.