This is open to debate. I'm John Donvan. Hi, everybody. Something astounding happened just a few months ago.

Doctors at a hospital in Philadelphia were able to successfully treat a seven-month-old baby who had a rare liver disease,

and it was done using CRISPR.

That is the technology that let scientists edit DNA.

This baby, according to the study that discusses the case, now has improved liver function,

can eat protein, and has reduced medications.

Now, a lot of people have been asking, what if we don't have to wait until birth to treat these serious illnesses or prescribe medicine?

What if we could go directly to the source, our DNA in human embryos,

to prevent these diseases before they even get started?

With the right amount of oversight, Could this lead to genetically advantaged children

that will help future generations? Well, some people think that creating designer babies,

so to speak, is science going too far? Some of what's able to be done at all is limited,

that it may create competition for the perfect baby, and even asking should this

godlike power be in human hands at all. So the question, should we use gene editing to make

better babies? We did this debate a few years ago when the pandemic was still in full swing,

and it is still a really interesting conversation. So let's get to it. Picture this.

A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor warns you that if you try to have a child,

that child is likely to inherit the disease, but new gene editing technology could change your

child's fate. Critics say this technology will exacerbate inequality,

pressure everyone into editing their children to stay competitive, and will meddle with the most basic aspect of our humanity, our DNA.

Others say with safeguards against abuse, this technology could benefit us in a host of ways. In that context, we debate

this question. Should we use gene editing to make better babies? That is the debate we're launching

...