Skip to Content
Biotechnology and health

We won’t use CRISPR to make super-smart babies—but only because we can’t

Gene experts speculate that our worst gene-editing fears won’t come true because they are too complex for us to pull them off.
January 18, 2019

One of the main worries that the public has about CRISPR is that it could be used to create “designer babies” with increased levels of intelligence. In the worst-case scenario, it could give an unfair advantage to parents who can afford to upgrade their offspring. Indeed, a Pew survey of US residents in July 2018 found their biggest worry was that CRISPR “will only be available to the wealthy.”

They needn’t worry, said three top gene-editing scientists this week. Intelligence is too complex to engineer and that’s a good thing, they say, since it “may ultimately save us from the hazards of humanity’s hubris.”

In November, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui claimed he’d secretly used the gene-editing tool to create twin girls resistant to HIV. That raised alarms because it showed there is no way to stop the manufacture of designer babies. 

But the public’s concern about the creation of intellectual elites probably isn’t realistic, according an editorial published January 16 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The article was written by George Daley, the dean of Harvard Medical School, and two European experts in embryology, Robin Lovell-Badge and Julie Steffann.

“In the long run, our greatest protection against inappropriate genome editing may be the implausibility of influencing traits such as intelligence, which emerge from complex interactions among multiple genes and environments,” they write.

We have linked more than a thousand genes to IQ or how far a person gets in school. Right now, scientists don’t know what those genes do, and what’s more, gene-editing tools aren’t yet up to the job of tailoring an embryo’s genes at so many locations.

To the editorial writers, that kind of ignorance is bliss. They are eager to see gene editing used to stamp out genetic disease in embryos—and they think it’s almost ready for the job, too.  Because serious congenital diseases like Huntington’s or cystic fibrosis are often caused by specific DNA errors in single genes, it’s quite possible to repair them with CRISPR. Doing it in an embryo, they say, might be the best way to get rid of the problem.

Daley and other scientists now want to see this sort of medicine move forward. But that will become harder if gene editing is flagrantly abused, since regulators will continue to block it and public opinion could sour.

For the twin girls, He Jiankui said he had removed a gene called CCR5 to make them immune to HIV. Even though He scored a first, Daley and his coauthors agree, it was an ignominious one because he didn’t follow ethics rules. “He will forever be remembered for his reckless flouting of widely articulated scientific, clinical, and ethical standards,” they write.

He now appears to be under house arrest—the New York Times spotted him behind bars installed on the balcony of a campus apartment—as Chinese authorities investigate, or at least allow the scandal blow over. 

The authors of today’s NEJM editorial argue strongly that this is just the beginning—there are legitimate reasons to alter embryos, they say. These include situations in which a couple can’t otherwise have healthy children or want to avoid passing on disease risk genes when trying to conceive via IVF.

One risk to these great medical ambitions is that CRISPR gets used for purposes that the public still thinks are troubling. Opinion polls show that most people are okay with using it to wipe out disease mutations. But only about 20% think using it for “enhancement”—specifically, trying to increase the intelligence of offspring—is a good idea. 

Luckily for scientists, they don’t have to tell us whether they think increasing intelligence is good or bad. It’s not possible, they say, so don’t worry about it. Just kick that can into the future. 

Deep Dive

Biotechnology and health

Scientists are finding signals of long covid in blood. They could lead to new treatments.

Faults in a certain part of the immune system might be at the root of some long covid cases, new research suggests.

This baby with a head camera helped teach an AI how kids learn language

A neural network trained on the experiences of a single young child managed to learn one of the core components of language: how to match words to the objects they represent.

The first gene-editing treatment: 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2024

Sickle-cell disease is the first illness to be beaten by CRISPR, but the new treatment comes with an expected price tag of $2 to $3 million.

We’ve never understood how hunger works. That might be about to change.

Scientists have spent decades trying to unravel the intricate mysteries of the human appetite. Are they on the verge of finally determining how this basic drive functions?

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.