The debate was organised last May by the Oxford Union Debate Society, a 200-year-old debate society renowned for attracting and bringing world figures on controversial issues. The motion under debate was the following: “This House believes the manipulation of human DNA is an ethical necessity”. 

Arguments in favour were presented by Sir Ian Wilnut, lead figure in cloning and Chair of the Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medecine at the University of Edinburgh, and Julian Savulescu, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. They primarily rested on the beneficial possibilities that DNA modification technology such as CRISPR or stem cells can help us understand the human genome and develop treatments for a plethora of genetic diseases. Julian Savulescu argued notably that genetic diseases should be addressed in priority. According to him, in an ethical perspective, preserving human wellbeing and autonomy is paramount. Techniques provided by scientific breakthroughs should not be fought against but regulated.  He deems that “There’s a kind of ‘genephobia’ that elevates genes above this status in life. Genes are simply stuff. Stuff that produces proteins, and proteins perform functions. There’s no difference in principle to changing a gene to changing a protein.”

On the opposing side neither speakers, Barbara Evans, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Biotechnology at the Houston University, and Norman Frost, paediatrician and bioethicist and Director of the Medical Ethics Programme at the University of Wisconsin, argued for a ban on DNA modification. They objected to framing the issue within the language of moral imperative. They stated that the motion of treating DNA modification as an “ethical necessity” lacked specificity. None of the proposing side’s arguments had succeeded in defining what this necessity was constituted of. “It’s always dangerous to reduce complex moral questions to binary formats,” said Professor Norman Frost. According to him there is no doubt that genetic research on the human embryo has enormous potential for relieving human suffering and improving the quality of human lives in future generations. “What doesn’t follow from that is that there is a necessity to do it.” Accepting DNA manipulation as an ethical necessity would imply that it becomes a duty to work on it. What modifications should be implemented, what would be considered a primary necessity—designer children? Which genes should be modified? How will a consensus be found?  Asked Norman Frost. Such preoccupations led Professor Barbara Evans to state that “no moral imperative against gene manipulation and no moral imperative for it” should exist.

The debate closed with the motion being defeated.

To go further:
https://www.oxford-union.org/term_events/dna_manipulation_debate